First Steps

[eredien]

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).

Comments

[eredien]

This may be complicated, so I am going to try to break it down (obviously, this is simplified, and I still haven't heard back from admissions so take all the info in this with a grain of salt, but):
- 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).

[eredien]

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.

[eredien]

Anyway, you've given me a lot to think about and I look forward to carrying on this conversation with you and all the other awesome people here. I also hope to hear back from the Smith folks and also the BMC admissions office soon. I also hope to hear from other actual genderqueer and/or transgender Mawrters, since I really am not comfortable going so far into theory that the lives and experiences of real human beings get erased.

Quick clarification

[eredien]

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.

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

[eredien]

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

[seishonagon.livejournal.com]

And on your last post, I agree with you 100%. Absolutely.

[seishonagon.livejournal.com]

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."

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.

[seishonagon.livejournal.com]

Assuming for the moment that the information you have on current BMC policy is accurate, I would add for clarity (and I've appended my opinions of each):
- 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.)