<p>It seems the question is not how you define yourself, but whether you define female-born transgenders as women. Whether a post-op female-born transgender is legally male or female will, no doubt resovled in the next few years. In the meantime, chiding Carol Christ for not having qualifed her statement to account for the presence of a hand-ful of pre-op female students who identify as male (aspirational males?) is, to say the least, nit-picking.</p>
<p>I respect your opinion, foolish, I do. And I wouldn’t ever dismiss your opinion. I hope Smith college is a place where a woman can raise an issue that seems to have a larger context in mind (even though it appears to be about something small) without being dismissed–even if it offends the status quo.</p>
<p>I love all things Smith and have been visiting Northampton for years. Actually, I’d like to teach at Smith.</p>
<p>I am introducing this for info purposes because the subject came up. As a Barnard parent I can tell you want Barnard is doing for its transgendered students. Students who identify as a male and have had hormone/surgery transfer to Columbia. They may attend an unlimited number of Barnard classes (obviously since all Columbia students can), but they are housed in Columbia dorms. This has seemed to work well for all involved, though I agree skirts some sticky political issues.</p>
<p>I think it is fair to also consider the women who came to Barnard to live in an all female dorm. Some were quite upset at having to be in a suite with a male. A straight, heterosexual male would have aroused the same consternation.</p>
<p>Since Columbia is a resource, it makes good sense.</p>
<p>My D would not be among those who would be perturbed in any way, but she did express an understanding of those who were.</p>
<p>Still, it has been respectful of all involved.</p>
<p>A male colleague of mine graduated from Mt. Holyoke when he was still Catherine. He speaks eloquently about what the acceptance of a women’s college meant to him when he thought he was a lesbian.</p>
<p>I think these are complicated matters, and it’s wonderful that Smith is so thoughtful in addressing them.</p>
<p>Also, I think the trans* issue is complicated. There are people who start college identifying as female and will continue to do so their entire lives. Some will come to college, begin identifying as male, and maybe go back to identifying as female at some point again. Still others will come, identify as male and continue to do so their entire lives. Some might not fit perfectly into male or female right now, but may do so in the near future. This isn’t a black and white issue with neat boxes.<br>
I do think, though, in the case of doing top surgery and hormone therapy, Barnard’s policy is not a bad one. If you have a coed school at your disposal, why not use it?</p>
<p>MM, I said nothing about anyone being a symbolic woman. I said some of the rhetoric on the issue is more symbolic than consequential…a very different thing. </p>
<p>MM’s post is a good tour d’horizon of the issues without any rhetorical excesses. Urrr…MythMom, that is. <em>Two</em> MM’s posting in this thread.</p>
<p>My D has been accepted to Smith and a handful of other places and is still trying to decide where to go – I tell her to take her time; there are still minutes left 
After revisit day I became aware of the recent dust-up on campus involving a trans student who was denied the opportunity to host a prospie, a dispute that has been duly noted elsewhere in this thread. I personally don’t have strong feelings one way or the other about the issue of gender identification at Smith, but after reading all the postings (as well as several others over at least the past decade on the very same issue) and several other newspaper stories – again sprinkled over the past decade – on the Web, it appears that this is an issue that won’t go away soon. Notions of sexual identity in the culture have been/are becoming more fluid. So it makes sense that the women’s colleges would be somewhere near the front in the battle simply because they long ago posted their flag in the sand, declaring themselves as institutions in support of one of two teams, back in the day when it was commonly accepted that there were only two. It seems to me that over the years the colleges have tried to make sensible, thoughtful adjustments, but it’s getting harder to do so – at what point is a woman no longer a woman? At what point is a women’s college no longer a women’s college? Clearly we’re not there yet on that specific issue. But the questions are more than merely philosophical because they are part of the larger challenge facing women’s colleges. The world is changing and not just in terms of sexual orientation. Women still face undeniable inequities in many if not all facets of life. But there have also been undeniable gains. Attitudes, experiences, and ambitions of young women likewise have changed. Among the Sisters, where once there were seven, there are now only five. It’s kind of hard to imagine that there will be women’s colleges in 50 years. But, for now, I just want my D to decide.</p>
<p>“Some schools to consider instead: Bob Jones, Liberty U., BYU, Texas A&M. May your daughter find happiness where delicate sensibilities aren’t offended.”</p>
<p>Whew! Some of the replies on this thread are a little over the top. A lot of people might be uncomfortable with the atmosphere at Smith–and not just homophobics or those who really belong at Bob Jones or Liberty University. I’ve talked to several people this week whose prospective freshmen were similarly turned off by what they considered kind of raunchy, silly, in-your-face, meant-to-shock sexual displays at Brown and Wesleyan. Those students felt much more comfortable at Tufts and Bowdoin, so they chose those colleges instead. Sometimes it isn’t all about prudes with overly delicate sensibilities who are easily offended, but students who find a certain atmosphere immature, not what they want for four years, and wisely choose one of their other outstanding options.</p>
<p>You could look at it another way. None of the major women’s college has decided to go coed in three decades. I suspect the greater threat is to liberal arts colleges (though not the top ones) - they will be hardpressed to keep their doors open as the baby bulge recedes, and colleges become more pre-professional.</p>
<p>Hm. Might have been an off day at Tufts and Bowdoin. I think college students like to shock. Mine are so disappointed when I agree that I am for the legalization of marijuana, too.</p>
<p>And think about all the drag that has always gone on at Yale.</p>
<p>And my kid, the least preppy kid in the world, is painted as a preppy jock because he goes to Williams.</p>
<p>I <em>do</em> think campus cultures vary, so selection on the basis of fit is, of course, appropriate, but in many cases the admissions office is making the decision and not the child. </p>
<p>My kid felt uncomfortable at Wesleyan too, but it was because the music practice rooms had mildewed carpet and were in a concrete bunker.</p>
<p>Now that he’s not a music major, it might not matter. But it did then.</p>
<p>Certainly, Smith seems more experimental in tone than Wellesley, but did anyone check out the naked year book done when Hillary Clinton was at Wellesley?</p>
<p>My D was taken on her first tour of Barnard by someone very in your face in many ways including very stereotypical homoerotic dress and behavior. The only thing that offended D was that she spelled “women”, “womyn.” She thought that a useless way to combat sexism and she felt it was esthetically displeasing. She matriculated anyway.</p>
<p>In a funny coincidence, the tour guide dated of her best friends. And yes, she’s straight, not that it matters.</p>
<p>Let’s not mistake style for substance.</p>
<p>Plenty of stuffy kids at Brown. I’ve met some!</p>
<p>Having just come back from the admitted students’ open house at Tufts, I can say that with regard to overt sexual display (either hetero or homosexual), it was like day and night compared to Smith. Definitely it was more in your face at Smith, and actually my daughter noticed more of it at Smith than I. Maybe she was looking for it and I just knew the gay community was so open there that I didn’t need to look for it. I was just admiring the beautiful buildings and gorgeous campus! </p>
<p>At Tufts, there was no overt display, either way. We visited their LGBTQ center; it was very low key as students were in classes. Other than the director and one student it was empty (the student counseled my daughter to choose Tufts over Smith, of course). </p>
<p>We visited with gay students a their table during the club info session and again low key. I’m sure there are wild everythings at Tufts too, but on the day to showcase the university, there was no “showing off.”</p>
<p>Were there many women at the gay students’ table? The reason I ask is that at most colleges, as in the population at larger, there are 3X-4X the number of gay males as gay women. (That’s certainly true at Yale, where there are the percentage of gay men is 2 1/2X larger than the percentage of lesbian women at Smith.) So “being in your face” can also be simply a matter of numbers - or strength in numbers. </p>
<p>(When we visited my alma mater, Williams, we found just one student at the LGBT table, and lots of complaint posters about homophobic chalkings, etc. I actually took the complaints as a sign of strength rather than weakness, as people felt comfortable airing them.)</p>
<p>Okay. I accept your perceptions. Wouldn’t matter to my D, but each to her own. Good luck to your daughter.</p>
<p>SF. I assure you the atmosphere at Smith overall is just as mature, and possibly even more engaged with the outside world, than many other colleges…like, oh, say, Colby.</p>
<p>My post was not meant for mini, but for the post above.</p>
<p>I"m sorry but Smith is not “in your face”
At any other college, straight couples can sit and make out on lawns, hold hands, etc. Friends can talk about their hetero sex lives and no one will blink a gosh darned eye. </p>
<p>I’m tired of, just because Smith has lesbians, the lesbians being “in your face” just for acting the way heterosexuals are allowed to. No one would bat an eye if the couples at Smith were heterosexual, but since they’re not, we have a whole discussion about how “uncomfortable” people are. </p>
<p>College is about being a bit over the top, but apparently that only crossed the line if it’s gay. And that, my friends, is homophobic.</p>
<p>R6L, I would cut just a <em>little</em> slack. For someone who has never experienced openly gay relationships and displays of affection in their midst, it might be startling and disconcerting at first blush. Heck, even here in the Los Angeles area there’s a lot of circumspection about public displays (at least outside of the WeHo & Los Feliz areas) of affection among gays. And that is one of the things that I think is going on at Smith: it’s a place where (gasp!) gay people can actually feel comfortable! The nerve! Who do they think they are! It’s not the kind of thing you might routinely experience in, say, Oklahoma. Or even Colby College.</p>
<p>But while initial exposure to same might be something of a curve ball, maintaining an “uncomfortable” stance in the light of examination does start getting into the “homophobic” territory.</p>
<p>I get what you’re saying TheDad. But i grew up in “Pennsytucky” it what was essentially the bible belt. It’s among the reddest counties in the US and there were certainly no gay people there. I get the intitial “shock” as I experienced it. But that fact the grown ups, who knew on some level what they were getting themselves into are this adament about how uncomfortable Smith made them, I can’t help but feel like it’s nothing but homophobia, and that’s not a word I use lightly.</p>
<p>I don’t mean to come off as harsh. I really don’t. But it’s just so frustrating and I guess upsetting to finally be in a place where I can be exactly who I want to be with exactly who I want to be with. I can hold my girlfriend’s hand and not be called a dyke, I can kiss her sweetly if I want to. I’m not a huge PDA person, but affection is nice. But to say that my affection, and the affection of my friends is “over the top” and “in your face” just bothers me. I’ve done way worse in public with boys and no one says a word, no one makes a fuss. Why does it come under scrutiny only if it’s two girls or two boys? I get that some people aren’t used to it, and maybe Smith isn’t for them, but don’t hate on it.</p>
<p>It’s perfectly natural to be uncomfortable the first time or even the first few times you experience something you aren’t used to, and that’s true for a lot of people when they witness open homosexual behavior. However, to turn a private discomfort with homosexuality—something that many people are quietly working to get past—into a public issue is when you start crossing into homophobic territory. It’s important for us all to recognize that just because something makes us uncomfortable doesn’t mean it’s a problem. For example, in my short life I haven’t had a lot experience with transsexuals, and so when I visited Smith and encountered trans students, it made me a little uncomfortable at first—not because it’s wrong in ANY way, but because I’m not used to it. Hell, when I was younger, before I realized that I was gay, I used to be a little uncomfortable with homosexuality because it wasn’t a big part of my life and I hadn’t had the chance to get used to it. If I had visited Smith three years ago I might have felt awkward seeing lesbian PDA. But even as a high school freshman I would have recognized my awkwardness as MY problem and not the school’s. I never would have even thought that the school as a whole had a problem, let alone stated it publicly. I agree completely with R6L: why should lesbians holding hands, kissing or even making out be considered “in your face” when straight students doing the same thing is acceptable?</p>
<p>R6L & SITN, I’m possibly splitting hairs too finely. I agree that “over the top” and “in your face” are poor reactions that say nothing good. And you reinforce my point about Smith being a place where gay people can be comfortable and hence the criticism stings even more. Btw, sympathies about Pennsytucky but there <em>are</em> gay people there…they’re mostly just very very very quiet about it.</p>
<p>All I’m saying is that for those who haven’t encountered openly gay relationships before, it can be disconcerting and that’s why I suggest a little, just a little, slack. Maintaining a negative reaction in the face of examination and dialog does move over into the homophobic range, I have no argument.</p>
<p>As D’s friend from South Carolina said, “I <em>thought</em> I was liberal until I came here.” Smith pushes some boundaries in a good way; some people have little trouble catching up at first. Other are hopeless. I just like to make distinctions between the two.</p>
<p>“I’m tired of, just because Smith has lesbians, the lesbians being “in your face” just for acting the way heterosexuals are allowed to.”</p>
<p>It is not about lesbians, it is about WOMEN. Smith is a women’s college. In our culture, that is an incredibly “in your face” thing. You mean women have a college with a $1.5 billion endowment that they have to manage? You mean women have a college where there are more research Fulbrights than women at Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore combined? You mean there is top flight engineering school headed by a woman underwritten by Ford Motor Company? You mean there is a college where women students are allowed to be every known variety of women so far discovered, and some as yet undiscovered?</p>
<p>If folks are thinking liberal arts college that happens to be all women, they’ve got it backwards.</p>