![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
First Steps
So, I just wrote the BMC admissions office asking for their policies on admitting transgender students, as I couldn't find them outlined anywhere on the admissions website, and have found some other info suggesting that the Transgender Task Force convened to make recommendations about this very issue a few years ago recommended the current possible admissions policy, which is admitting FTM students (great! (edit: or more like, "hm, are we actually respecting these students' gender identity when we admit them as women, if they're identifiying as men? But are we really gonna kick out students who transition to male in the middle of their undergraduate years?") but not MTF students (ugh).
I've been thinking about doing that for a long time, but I held off because I was scared. But I realized holding off wasn't going to do anything except stop me from making a decision and dealing with its consequences for as long as possible--I'd still eventually have to make the decision and deal with the fallout, and the longer I delayed the harder it would be for me to make a good decision because I'd have been worrying about the potential consequences for years, and my head wouldn't be in a good place to deal with the actual decision making and its actual consequences after that.
I wanna change that policy, if in fact that is still the official college policy, and asked how to get involved. I also wanted confirmation from the source itself--who knows, the policy might have changed in the last few years (one can hope). I don't know if the task force is even still around, for instance--and those were some of the questions I asked.
I am pretty much setting myself up for a firestorm here, but hey, if there's one thing that I learned at college, it was to be unashamed of the person I am, and stand up for myself as a woman and as a thinker, and stand up for others as a woman and a thinker, unafraid. If Bryn Mawr's goal is really to allow women to stand up for themselves and be taken seriously as human beings and as intellectuals, then they need to stop deliberately denying MTF women a chance to reach that goal during the applications process itself. To say that's their goal for all women, but deliberately encourage that goal for only some women and discourage it for others, is just sad.
I don't support other organizations with such exclusionary policies with my time or money, even if they mean a lot to me otherwise. Why continue to support this one? I'm not about drawing lines between "real Mawrters" and "fake" ones, then trying to support only the people I agree with while demonizing those I don't, such that those people in turn have a reason to label and demonize me.
It's taken a while for me to decide this, as I'm back in Boston now and I'd sure like to get involved with the BMC Boston folks again, but I certainly won't donate to or volunteer any more with the school until they change this policy (unless they want me on the Transgender Task Force, which I'd be happy to volunteer my time and effort for).
Every woman (and FTM persons, too) should have the opportunity to have Bryn Mawr mean as much to her as it did to me, but they don't, because as far as I can tell, the college has deliberately cut them out of those opportunities from the very beginning. That's not right.
I will post more when I hear back from the admissions office, because I want to make sure that I have the current and accurate facts in line. (Really, the first thing I want to try and get them to do is post their current policies somewhere people can find them).
I've been thinking about doing that for a long time, but I held off because I was scared. But I realized holding off wasn't going to do anything except stop me from making a decision and dealing with its consequences for as long as possible--I'd still eventually have to make the decision and deal with the fallout, and the longer I delayed the harder it would be for me to make a good decision because I'd have been worrying about the potential consequences for years, and my head wouldn't be in a good place to deal with the actual decision making and its actual consequences after that.
I wanna change that policy, if in fact that is still the official college policy, and asked how to get involved. I also wanted confirmation from the source itself--who knows, the policy might have changed in the last few years (one can hope). I don't know if the task force is even still around, for instance--and those were some of the questions I asked.
I am pretty much setting myself up for a firestorm here, but hey, if there's one thing that I learned at college, it was to be unashamed of the person I am, and stand up for myself as a woman and as a thinker, and stand up for others as a woman and a thinker, unafraid. If Bryn Mawr's goal is really to allow women to stand up for themselves and be taken seriously as human beings and as intellectuals, then they need to stop deliberately denying MTF women a chance to reach that goal during the applications process itself. To say that's their goal for all women, but deliberately encourage that goal for only some women and discourage it for others, is just sad.
I don't support other organizations with such exclusionary policies with my time or money, even if they mean a lot to me otherwise. Why continue to support this one? I'm not about drawing lines between "real Mawrters" and "fake" ones, then trying to support only the people I agree with while demonizing those I don't, such that those people in turn have a reason to label and demonize me.
It's taken a while for me to decide this, as I'm back in Boston now and I'd sure like to get involved with the BMC Boston folks again, but I certainly won't donate to or volunteer any more with the school until they change this policy (unless they want me on the Transgender Task Force, which I'd be happy to volunteer my time and effort for).
Every woman (and FTM persons, too) should have the opportunity to have Bryn Mawr mean as much to her as it did to me, but they don't, because as far as I can tell, the college has deliberately cut them out of those opportunities from the very beginning. That's not right.
I will post more when I hear back from the admissions office, because I want to make sure that I have the current and accurate facts in line. (Really, the first thing I want to try and get them to do is post their current policies somewhere people can find them).
no subject
no subject
a) it's admitting men, and so is not a women's college, or
b) is saying that these people are not really men, so it's still a women's college for women.
Now, I have mixed opinions about places being single-sex in the first place; on the one hand, it reinforces a binary, on the other hand, it was nice not to go to college with a lot of people who had been socialized to shout over me in class and had not had any reason to question that socialization. So... it's super-complicated.
I think Bryn Mawr would be more consistent to either a) admit trans women but not trans men, just as it admits cis women but not cis men, or b) radically redefine itself as a college, possibly as "college for people who are disadvantaged by the patriarchy in various ways." (Though the patriarchy is not great for straight cis-men either, in many ways, but still...)
That said: go you for wanting to work on this, and I think it is important and cool work! I just think you might want to very carefully think through your premises before you take action.
no subject
I understand that being FTM isn't something everyone realizes or comes out as right away, and that while not living as male BMC may be a more comfortable place. But I, despite having more complicated views of gender definition overall, think that given the gender delineation in society we need an all women's school like Bryn Mawr. And that there should not be men attending an all-women's school. This is nothing against individuals I have known and thought awesome, this is about what Bryn Mawr is and not being a woman.
and as Gaudior said: go you! This is important! And to that end, if there is anything I can do to help you make changes to policy and get MTF admitted, let me know! I will send emails, go to meetings if schedule permits, make a phone call, or whatever would help.
no subject
But if either or any of you have any more questions, let me know. Like I said, I have been researching this and turning it over in my mind for a while, but it's impossible to know everything, and at some point one must just go ahead with what one feels is right. I actually agree with you about BMC not going co-ed for undergraduate programs, and that is a large part of why I find admitting FTM students but not MTF students problematic; I feel like the students' gender identity is being totally disrespected by the school and the school is also disrespecting its students and therefore, its mission of education. But I also think that when men's-only schools say they want to stay mens'-only schools, they should be allowed to--surely there are historical gender discrepancies to address, but if one main gender gets a school with a culture build in large part around gender identity, the other main gender should also be allowed to have and cultivate the same, if we truly believe there is nothing wrong, and much to be celebrated, about crafting our identities around any gender identification(s).
I haven't heard back from the admissions office yet; I will let folks know when I do.
no subject
Firstly, I think everything you've said above and below is very well thought-out, and I have no words to describe how awesome I think it is that you're doing this. I do have another set of points to make that don't necessarily agree or disagree with yours, and I'm sure they're things you've thought of, but they haven't been said outright in this post as of yet and I think they're useful to get out there: namely, the purely educational concerns of a women's college admitting trans men and trans women.
After arguing myself in circles on other points of view, therefore, I have to disagree with what's been said here. I think BMC should admit both trans men and trans women.
Bryn Mawr's primary commitment is and has always been to women's education. The reasons for this are educational in nature, as well as political, and the basic educational concern is this: women and men are treated differently. The educational world has become much more equal than previously in its treatment of men and women, but we're not there yet. People who have been raised as women and educated as women have some very specific cultural and cognitive handicaps and disadvantages passed to them through scholastic culture, which Bryn Mawr seeks to overcome. Also, women face very specific (though different) handicaps and disadvantages when they proceed forward from college, into their various careers in or out of academia and education.Bryn Mawr seeks to overcome those well.
I don't think BMC's mission is just about "people who face disadvantages because of the cultural patriarchy of the modern world." Frankly, everyone faces some disadvangages as a result of The Patriarchal System, which is most of why it needs to change. It's about "people who face very specific disadvantages from education-based and career-based patriarchy."
MTF individuals who go the long haul and fully present themselves to the world as women will, as a result of that change, face the career-based disadvantages women will face. FTM individuals who go the long haul have already faced the education-based disadvantages that girls face. (All of these, of course, in addition to the disadvantages they will face from being a tremendous gender minority through being trans in the first place.)
Bryn Mawr, by its own mission, has an educational responsibility to women's education. 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.
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.
no subject
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.
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?
no subject
- Cis women: currently identify and are identified as women, admitted.
- Trans women: currently identify and are identified as women, not admitted.
- Cis men: currently identify and are identified as men, not admitted.
- Trans men: currently identify and are identified as men, admitted.
- Genderqueer women (inclusive neither): currently identify as both man and woman, admitted.
- Genderqueer men (inclusive neither): currently identify as both man and woman, admitted.
- Gendrqueer women (exclusive neither): currently identify as neither man or woman, assume you'd be admitted due to fitting some kind of general idea of "woman has set of genitals x" despite not identifying as a woman (?)
- Genderqueer man (exclusive neither): currently identify as neither man or woman, assume you'd be not admitted due to not identifying as a woman.
- Intersexed people: Honestly, I have no clue if the college would admit intersexed people or not. It might depend on how they identify; I hope it would at any rate.
What to do with those genderqueer men who are an inclusive neither because they explicitly identify as both genders at once?--or do you think that falls under the heading of "we need a college to end the gender binary, but BMC can't do everything for everyone?" In this case, how can you say that these people will never experience or have never previously experienced the specific educational issues of those who identify as women--since in fact they do currently identify as women, at least in part? (As opposed to, for example, trans men, who may once may have identified as women, but now likely identify as men generally).
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.
no subject
Quick clarification
We have to stop treating femininity as if it is not as valuable, as desired, or indeed as present as masculinity. We especially have to stop treating femininity as if it is not as valuable, as desired, or indeed as present as masculinity when that femininity is found in or with something and/or someone male.
That should clear up any grammar confusion. "We have to stop treating femininity as if it is not present as masculinity" is not what I meant to say, and I realized it could be read that way due to the absence of an article. (I'd like to thank my parents, Ann Raynd and God, for pointing out this error.)
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.)
Re: Quick clarification
no subject
In that case, I think I'm being unclear.
I think people should be admitted if they meet any of the following criteria (assuming, of course, that they qualify for admission in other ways as well):
-currently identify as women, in whole or in part
-have in the past identified as women, in whole or in part, for educational purposes
-have in the past been forcibly identified by others as women, in whole or in part, for educational purposes
I believe people should only be excluded from Bryn Mawr on a gender basis if they do not, and never have, identified as women in any part or whole, and never been identified by others as women in any part or whole, for educational purposes. My reasoning is that Bryn Mawr, as you put it, can't be everything to everyone. BMC's purpose is to address the educational issues that affect women. If someone has been sufficiently identified as a woman, in whole or in part, to have experienced those issues, they belong at Bryn Mawr. If not, they would not receive any benefit from the specialization offered by Bryn Mawr, and should therefore go somewhere else (like our theoretical awesome college dedicated to the ending of the gender binary).
Therefore, for example, I totally think we should admit genderqueer inclusive men, but not necessarily genderqueer exclusive men. I think we should admit both FTM and MTF persons.
no subject
- Cis women: currently identify and are identified as women, admitted. (I think this is good.)
- Trans women: currently identify and are identified as women, not admitted because they have in the past identified or been identified as men. (I think this is bad.)
- Cis men: currently identify and are identified as men, not admitted. (I think this is good.)
- Trans men: currently identify and are identified as men, admitted because they have in the past identified or been identified as women. (I think this is good.)
- Genderqueer women (inclusive neither): currently identify as both man and woman, admitted because they have in the past identified or been identified as women. (I think this is good.)
- Genderqueer men (inclusive neither): currently identify as both man and woman, admitted because they identify in part as women. (Hm, I find this surprising, but good.)
- Gendrqueer women (exclusive neither): currently identify as neither man or woman, assume you'd be admitted due to fitting some kind of general idea of "woman has set of genitals x" despite not identifying as a woman (?) (Or possibly because they have at some point been identified as a woman even if they haven't identified themselves that way... and therefore I think this is good.)
- Genderqueer man (exclusive neither): currently identify as neither man or woman, assume you'd be not admitted due to not identifying as a woman. (And because they have never identified or been identified as a woman. And therefore I think this is good.)
- Intersexed people: Honestly, I have no clue if the college would admit intersexed people or not. It might depend on how they identify; I hope it would at any rate. (I agree completely. If they identify as women in whole or in part, or have been identified as such for educational purposes, I would hope that they would be admitted.)
What to do with those genderqueer men who are an inclusive neither because they explicitly identify as both genders at once?--or do you think that falls under the heading of "we need a college to end the gender binary, but BMC can't do everything for everyone?" In this case, how can you say that these people will never experience or have never previously experienced the specific educational issues of those who identify as women--since in fact they do currently identify as women, at least in part? (As opposed to, for example, trans men, who may once may have identified as women, but now likely identify as men generally).
I personally think they should be admitted, because they identify in part as women. I think that people who identify in that way will be affected by the issues BMC seeks to address. (They will also be affected by a whole host of other issues, but those may be outside of BMC's mission, beyond their mission to help a student with whatever issues they have after admission.)
no subject
I certainly don't think we should be excluding people who have identified or been identified as something other than women, on that basis alone, as long as they meet the criterion outlined above: that they have faced those instructional issues. I think that if this is why Bryn Mawr is currently admitting FTM persons, then they're on the right track.
no subject
As I said, as I understand it: BMC is currently already admitting FTM folks. I am not sure that is the world's best decision because I feel as if the college is really using one of those two explanations (or maybe both?); if I had to pick one I'd come down on the side of "you're not really a man yet, so it's still a womens' college for women." As you said, that reasoning is for crap. If that was it, I wouldn't actually support admitting FTM people as undergrads at all, because I would feel as if the college were not taking them or itself seriously--and also, I don't know why any FTM undergrad would want to go a place that obviously didn't really validate their gender identity and did their best to ignore/quash it. But then again, I am not an FTM person at BMC; there may be mitigating factors. There usually are.
The problem here is that the process of transitioning, and the timing of it, isn't such a cut-and-dried situation. What happens when you start out at college pretty sure you're a woman, and end up being a man?
This isn't just theoretical. I know two people, personally, in my class year, one of them a friend, who either transitioned or started transitioning while at college. When is BMC dealing with those folks? How? Are you really gonna kick them out in their junior year? If they get GRS? When they start hormone treatments? What's the line? Is there a line? Should there be a line, since there's not always a line IRL either? (Interesting question, which may or may not be theoretical for all I know: do you think BMC would admit an intersexed person? Why or why not? How would you feel about it?)
I know my college experience would have been way less rich and awesome without my friend, and I know that the hidden-ness of the FTM folks on campus led to at least one awkward personal misunderstandings with said friend--I tried to get them to join in the people having fun, but the way I did it only made them feel worse about being trans--but there was no way I knew that except in hindsight, because my friend hadn't come out to me.
If BMC has a policy of not having FTM students as undergrads, at whatever arbitrary cutoff point, then what happens to people like my friend? If they'd chosen to implement such a policy while you were a student, and you had FTM friends on campus who loved their professors and classes and friends, what would you do? For me, it would all come down to knowing why the administration was enacting whatever policy it chose. (For instance, if it was "you're really still a woman because you haven't had GRS," I'd advise my friend to get someplace where the administration would respect his gender identification. But would I then be consistent in my views, ask the administration to admit FTM students to an ostensibly womens' college, as opposed to just keeping the students who transitioned while undergraduates? I really don't think that's a great idea, because I don't think the administration would be able to do that and respect their mission and the applicants' gender identity at the same time. Especially as people are transitioning younger and younger, which I think is *great*, these questions must come up more and more in admissions. I kind of don't envy them, sometimes.)
Part 2
I think if you're going to allow people who entered as women and left as trans men to remain enrolled and graduate, then you've got to be consistent. What if somebody applies as a woman, is accepted, and then transitions to male spring and summer their senior year of high school? Are you going to rescind their admission? That'd be a fun public-relations circus.
Okay, let's say that they decide to rescind admissions for that person. What if somebody applies as a woman, is accepted, and then begins transitioning the fall and winter of their freshman year? Will the college rescind their admission, even though the difference between the two cases can be stated literally in terms of a month?
It looks to me like right now, they'd admit a trans man who'd possibly started hormone treatments at any time during the admissions/acceptance/student/graduation process, but not had GRS. However, it is unclear to me if they'd rescind admission (or kick somebody out who was already enrolled) if that person managed to somehow magically afford GRS while in college. This is fascinating, and I want to confirm or deny that theory with the admissions office and powers that be.
One of the reasons that I want to confirm or deny their admittance criteria for FTM students is because then I think then there'd be more of a basis for understanding and hopefully clarifiying what BMC considers to be the real admittance "criteria" for "woman". Is it really "current state of genitalia," as I fear it might be? Would they accept an MTF woman who'd had hormone treatments, but not GRS? Would they only take a MTF woman if she'd had GRS? Why? When? If not, on what grounds can they admit an FTM student in the analogous but opposite position?
These are the questions I kind of want to start asking.
I'm also trying to network with some Smith students and alums who have apparently started a group to get Smith to take a look at these issues. :) Thanks for your support and thoughts.
Re: Part 2
Re: Part 2
The more I think about it, the more I wonder if this isn't the same argument that the Michigan's Womyn's Music Festival has every single year...there's more on the next post about this, "baby steps."
no subject
Well, some of them don't start out being admitted as trans men, for one. I am not so sure I support *admitting* them as trans men, because I feel it doesn't really respect their gender identity as men, but if you don't admit trans men and then end up having trans men anyway as folks transition, what are you going to do? Kick them out their senior year? I think it's a more complicated question than it first appears. Please see blow for a more detailed response.
no subject
How do they feel about whether or not it respects their gender identity?
no subject
no subject