<p><<<
. Some of my Holyoke classmates didn’t trans until after college. Some many, many years later.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>??</p>
<p>Just because someone doesn’t announce or go thru surgery until after college or many years later does not mean that they didn’t know long before that. I highly doubt that these folks went all thru high school (or before), thinking, “I’m a girl, I’m a girl, I’m a girl”…and then suddenly at age 25 or 30 think…“Oh, I’m a boy.”</p>
<p>I can think of a whole bunch of reasons why a person wouldn’t make such an announcement for awhile. There are/were too many parents that might have pulled support if their child openly declared another gender. </p>
<p>I know a young person (born female, age 26) whose parents are fine that he lives with a woman, but they can’t handle that he wants to go thru surgery.</p>
<p>“think it’s unreasonable to expect seniors to have figured out their gender identities at the time they apply to college. Some of my Holyoke classmates didn’t trans until after college. Some many, many years late”</p>
<p>If they didn’t do so til many years later, then during the MH years they were identifying as women at the time they went through admissions. So what would be the problem? </p>
<p>I think it’s not very considerate of someone who really thinks she (born) is really a man trapped in a woman’s body to apply to a women’s college. Because he’s doing so because he believes it’s safe for him, not because he believes himself to be a woman. I don’t really care (as in the case of Alex Poon, whose sister and mother went to W) that it’s his “dream.” My son might dream of going to Wellesley, but that doesn’t obligate them to admit him. </p>
<p>Just read the article in OP’s post and imagine there’s a college of Wellesley’s stature with the male/female roles reversed, and there was a huge movement against a trans identifying herself as a woman being elected as leader because having women as leaders undermines the ideals of the institution. Also amusing was the hostility towards the idea that someone identifying himself as a male in Wellesley was inappropriate to be the head of diversity. </p>
<p>As a trans person, you’re acutely aware of the pain of being forced to repudiate your chosen identity.
Why would you, by your actions, attempt to force an all-woman’s institution to repudiate its chosen identity?</p>
<p>This seems like what PG and others are saying – and it’s my view as well.
In addition the dishonesty of some of the trans men in not revealing their gender identification/intentions on the application was disturbing. </p>
<p>and the long time Wellesley professor: << “All my life here,” Cushman told me, “I’ve been compelled to use the female pronoun more generously to get away from the sexist ‘he.’ I think it’s important to evoke the idea that women are part of humanity. That should be affirmed, especially after being denied for so long. Look, I teach at a women’s college, so whenever I can make women’s identity central to that experience, I try to do that. Being asked to change that is a bit ironic. I don’t agree that this is a ‘historically’ women’s college. It is still a women’s college.”>></p>
<p>From a Wellesley alum: The current trend of “choosing” a new gender identity is a reflection of a society that has become increasingly conservative in its rigid adherence to gender roles. When I was a student at Wellesley in the 1970s, we relished in the experience of bucking those gender stereotypes. The photo of Boatwright – short hair, men’s shirt, jeans, and sneakers - could easily have been me or one of my friends in those days. The difference was, we knew that our affinity for accessories and passions more traditionally associated with males did not make us any less female. </p>
<p>It makes me sad that, rather than learning at Wellesley that it is okay to be a female who embraces a style more stereotypically associated with being male, these students are learning that they can change their presentation and pronouns and then “own” the entitlements of being raised male, making demands on the college and on their professors to change 140 years of a proud history of educating females.</p>
<p>I have no problem with keeping students at the school who wish to experiment with gender roles and presentation, but demanding that the language used in the classroom and in the dorms no longer focus on the female experience is erasure of the generations of Wellesley women who have fought for recognition in a male centered world.</p>
<p>Wellesley is a women’s college. Those students who cannot appreciate the reality of studying at a women’s college should choose another place to study.</p>
<p>I agree with not applying to a woman’s college if someone identifies with being male. It surprises me that someone would want to do this. </p>
<p>It could also be confusing down the line when that college appears on a CV. I wouldn’t know for sure myself, but I imagine that if someone went through the change to become male, that he would want to be recognized as one. So when he interviews for a job, and has a woman’s college on his CV, that might result in confusion.</p>
<p>I think it’s pointless to say that someone “shouldn’t have done something if…” or “why did they apply to a women’s college if…” We cannot get inside these folks’ heads to know their motivations and we should not be so quick to judge. Sometimes people try to subvert their innate feelings by unconsciously trying to be “more” of what they are “supposed to be”, so a woman who identifies as male may choose a women’s college to “find that inner woman”. For example, I’ve read (don’t know if it’s true) that some gay men, or men who end up being transwomen, who have not yet come out join the military in the hopes of finding their “inner macho”. Nothing is simple, and I am very sure that it is not simple for these people. </p>
<p>Funny enough, I found out a few weeks back from a lunch meeting with a HS classmate about how 2 older classmates we knew who was known to be adamant about being socially conservative and anti-LGBTQ stances turned out to have done so because of their own internal conflicts over their own orientations/personal inclinations. </p>
<p>One ended up coming out of the closet after attending college whereas another who was deeply religious and even handpicked by his conservative fundamentalist-leaning church to lecture younger children/teens on adhering to their stance on social issues and studying hard so they can end up at an HYP like him is now a neo-hippie who completely rejected his childhood religion and the strict code of beliefs he once lectured others on. </p>
<p>I am a complete outsider to this as I know nothing about women’s colleges, but I have a question about language. </p>
<p>Once the college allows male students to attend – either exchange students or men who transitioned after being admitted as women – why would the college continue to address the student body with gender- specific language? Referring to a student body that includes men as “ladies” does seem exclusionary to me. I don’t see why using neutral, inclusionary language would in any way interfere with the mission of the college to promote the education of women. </p>
<p>Also, insistence on the term “alumnae” seems a bit anachronistic to me at a time when gender-specific nouns are, for the most part, being dropped. I have no idea if Wellesley has a theater department, but if it does, do the women in that department insist on being called “actresses” when most other women in the field prefer “actor”?</p>
<p>The reality is, that if Wellesley decides to confer degrees on men who have transitioned, then not all of their graduates will be women. Using a female-specific term to address all grads DOES exclude some of its grads. I can sort of understand those men feeling, “What about me?” </p>
<p>Again, I have no knowledge of women’s colleges and I would not presume to dictate what the school’s policy should be. I’m just noting that to an outsider the language question doesn’t seem as clear cut as others seem to think it is.</p>
<p>As a follow-up question (and this is a sincere question, not a rhetorical one), what do you think of the language issue in small group settings? For example, do you think a Wellesley professor teaching a class of 10 students should use the term “ladies” in addressing the class if one of the students is a man? It would seem absurd in that setting for the professor to justify that by saying “Wellesley is a women’s college.”</p>
<p>We’ve been using a language for centuries that isn’t adapted to complete gender neutrality. If a professor at a woman’s college has been calling the students “ladies” “women” and “she” for years, it would be like learning a new language to change this. Just as someone who is trans can expect to be accepted, I would also hope that he/she would be forgiving of how hard it is to change one’s language pattern, as well as how awkward it is to speak in completely gender neutral terms and be grammatically correct. </p>
<p>The entire English language is going to have to be overhauled to eliminate any gender references. Thank goodness it isn’t like French or Spanish where everything has a gender, even objects like tables, or apples and corresponding parts of speech are also gender based.</p>
<p>Of course it would be ridiculous and rude for a prof in a 10 person class to address them as “women” or “ladies.”</p>
<p>We are talking about situations like such: a W student is being interviewed by a publication. In the course of her interview, she’s asked about her experience and she replies -it’s really great to be surrounded by so many strong, capable woman. Because we are an women’s college, we get to blah blah blah. I have learned so much from my sisters and I cherish the sisterhood that I hope will last years. </p>
<p>Guaranteed that the small but vocal minority who looks to feel offended will attempt to pin this student to the ground for having marginalized them. </p>
<p>I have no issues with how any one chooses to present themselves, wear dresses and frills or work boots and piercings, it’s all the same to me. If you come to the realization your identity is truly male, Godspeed. But then “know your place” - which is as a grandfathered member of a women"s college. And stop trying to re appropriate Wellesley’s identity. If you want a place where the president addresses the student body as “the men and women of the class of 2017” 99% of the colleges in the country do just that. </p>
<p>It will be interesting to see at graduation how politically correct the pres will have to be to avoid making statements about “the premier college for women” and using “she” and “her.” She’s no dummy and I bet she is getting her speeches quite carefully. </p>
<p>But we would NEVER accept this argument in an environment that was predominantly and historically all male. A decade ago I was appointed to a professional committee consisting of 20 men and me, a woman. There was one a****ole who insisted on addressing the group as “Gentlemen – oh, and lady.” It was insulting and inappropriate. I brought it up to him and he made the same argument that you outline above.</p>
<p>(I realize that this is not a precisely analogy because it wasn’t the mission of the committee to promote the interests of men.)</p>
<p>Do you remember the Barbara Bush (herself a Smith grad) controversy? She was invited to be commencement speaker in 1990 and there were protests because she was seen as not bring a career woman but in only gaining prominence through marriage. She gave a wonderful speech - start at 8:45 for the relevant part. </p>
<p>"For over 50 years, it was said that the winner of Wellesley’s Annual Hoop Race would be the first to get married. Now they say the winner will be the first to become a C.E.O. Both of these stereotypes show too little tolerance for those who want to know where mermaids stand. </p>
<p>So I offer you today a new legend: the winner of the Hoop Race will be the first to realize her dream . . . not society’s dream . . . her own personal dream. </p>
<p>And who knows? Somewhere out in this audience may even be someone who will one day follow my footsteps, and preside over the White House as the President’s spouse. (Pause)</p>
<p>I wish him well!"</p>
<p>SO well played, so classy, such a gracious way of defusing the controversy. Watch the video if you haven’t done so. </p>
<p>Sadly, today, such a speech would be derided because it used “her” dream, and assumed that a couple occupying the White House would be heteronormative, and everyone would be all offended, and apparently being offended is a high crime. A few people ruin it for everybody. And by a few - I don’t mean transmen as a whole. I mean those both women and transmen who wish to change W’s unique mission. </p>
<p>"But we would NEVER accept this argument in an environment that was predominantly and historically all male. A decade ago I was appointed to a professional committee consisting of 20 men and me, a woman. There was one a****ole who insisted on addressing the group as “Gentlemen – oh, and lady.” It was insulting and inappropriate. I brought it up to him and he made the same argument that you outline above.</p>
<p>(I realize that this is not a precisely analogy because it wasn’t the mission of the committee to promote the interests of men.)"</p>
<p>I think everyone is mature enough at W to understand that you don’t sit in a room full of 20 women and 1 transmen and say “hey ladies.” That’s deliberately rude. The issue is more about how the student body at large is addressed, talked about, inspired, conceptualized. Can / should W still describe itself as a women’s college? If transmen are “equal in stature” then why not “regular” men? </p>
<p>To be clear, I think the transmen who are grandfathered in should be treated respectfully, have the same academic opportunities, etc. </p>
<p>Should they host prospies for overnights? Should they be alum interviewers? </p>
<p>I confess I’m not fully sure where I stand on the transwoman piece. I don’t think W does either. </p>
<p>I basically agree with you, Pizzagirl. But I don’t think it would be overly PC to refer to “the women of Wellesley’s class of 2015 and other members of the graduating class.” Rhetorically clunky, maybe, but not inconsistent with the school’s mission. </p>
<p>I agree there would be no legitimate ground for offense in the magazine interview scenario that you presented. </p>
<p>"Once the college allows male students to attend – either exchange students or men who transitioned after being admitted as women – why would the college continue to address the student body with gender- specific language? "</p>
<p>Male exchange students (of which there are VERY few) are a different animal (har har). They aren’t part of the Wellesley student body as a whole. They are visitors / guests. They aren’t demanding gender specific language be changed for them (any more than, for example, my son is when he goes to visit his sister). Does that make sense? </p>