All-males college excludes TW. And they don't like it up 'em!

[BuzzPeakWankBobbly]

Oh this is just gold!

"Morehouse College, the only all-male historically black college in the US, announced that it would begin admitting transgender men next year in a new policy that the college’s board of trustees approved on Saturday. While non-binary and gender non-conforming students will be eligible for admission, trans women will not be, and students who transition or begin to self-identify as female during their tenure at Morehouse will not be eligible to receive a degree from the college."

And guess who is spitting feathers about their innate womanly essence now not being manly enough, that it is "violent" against them, and that they will be "antagonized and expunged"?

www.buzzfeednews.com/article/daveyalba/morehouse-college-transgender-male-students?fbclid=IwAR3AKCA-ZA3mzJtI3TdwfZn0xRNbLhZ6MmWXqzfoY9XQJa0pPJdiRAdWDKU

It sounds like a poor decision by the college. Nevertheless I will take my laughs wherever I can find them.

it must be tough to be told that after your 4 years of study you won't be getting your degree qualification. I wonder what, if any, feasible options there would be to transfer to/study at another college?

this really does seem unfair, but I assume US colleges operate quite independently. If there's no transfer route, kicking out people (who are still of the correct sex, of course) may fit genderist 'logic' but is IMO nasty.

I know one of the remaining women's colleges in Cambridge doesn't kick out their students if they want to transition to TM, but will try to assist them to move to a mixed college if they want to - and it's within the same university so it's the same course. (I'd guess the other two women's colleges have similar policy, but I've not actually read those). Anyhow, that seems

...that seems compassionate and reasonable.

I assumed it meant that students would have to graduate with an ‘M’ on the degree certificate, rather than be kicked out for socially/medically transitioning?

But surely letting them in would be denying their womanhood and an act of literal violence?

Calleighdoodle
And both men and women should be allowed to experiment with different styles (makeup, clothes etc) without risking their education.

this confused me. is this what makes someone a man or a woman

Depends who you ask!
Not in my opinion, no.

But it does seem rare now for students to wear clothes associated with the opposite sex without another identifying as or being labelled as trans by others.
I am not sure what would happen if a male student, who identified as male wanted to wear makeup and a dress at this College - how would he prove he was a man, and entitled to a degree from the college?
If it's not biological sex, and it's not presentation that distinguishes male from female, then how the hell could a college enforce a "male only" rule?
It renders the idea of single sex (or gender) meaningless, however you define sex and gender. (Unless sex is defined according to biological reality.)

Typo above, should be "EITHER" not "another"

Needmoresleep

I agree that this nonsense is triggering a much bigger backlash from religious groups than anywhere else. At the UN conference on Women and Girls last month the only group to address this issue and how damaging it was to women's progress were the Holy See, and they were pissed about it.

I have to admit, if the old saying "the left think women are public property, the right think women are private property" - i.e the left want us back in the brothels, the right want us back in the home - is true, then I'm taking my chances with the right! Though both positions are clearly deeply fucked up.

Wouldn't their dysphoria be utterly triggered being in such a male environment. Would they demand their female safe space?

When a man says he wants to be considered a woman but he's still retains his penis his message is that he wants to be considered a woman when that is to his advantage but he also wants to retain his male privilege

That is why they are super pissed about not having access to male privilege, essentially they are still men and the essence of masculinity is to do with male privilege (as symbolised by the penis)

trans people are claiming to be genderfluid claiming to be breaking down gender norms but actually they are reinforcing them
The message from trans people is that characteristics traditionally associated with the other sex are not acceptable, if you are a man and there is anything that could be deemed feminine about you then you must become a woman

First female to graduate FFS.

Like that soldier.

Taking a first for "women" when it would literally have been impossible for a cunty woman to do it.

And not even noticing / having any kind of idea that this is a bit of an issue.

Because it's all about them and it's all about men.

Note as well that person says they are not just a woman but female.

The argument has been that "woman" is a Social category which everyone knows it isn't.

Female is a social category as well.

There are no words to denote physical sex.

In fact female, woman, girl all refer to sex so we need them back, ta.

And at worst, it is violent and a clear target against trans femmes which includes women and nonbinary femmes.”

Well theres a change eh?

If TRAs want to fight to be in womens colleges, then surely it makes sense they would be excluded from mens?! Unless its a case of having ones cake and eating it. Surely not!

For the record though, my opinion is transwomen should absolutely be allowed in male colleges. And transmen in female ones. given they are segregated by sex rather than fashion choices and such. 'Non-binary' people it should go on their actual sex also.

I just find it amusing that the fight has been for womens spaces, but as soon as they are excluded from mens spaces, its still horrific and violent and so on Surely its transphobic to whinge about transmen being seen as the men they are inside and transwomens gender identity to be acknowledged?!

I'm currently reading The Coddling of the American Mind (thanks for whoever on MN recommended it, it's a fascinating read). It's largely about identity politics in American universities but much is relevant to trans issues and particularly to this thread. From what I've read, I don't think Morehouse College even had a chance to refuse to accept gender identity as the basis for admission.

One thing in the book that really caught my eye was this diagram:

i.redd.it/azxipgqozyo11.png

In order to score the most oppression points, one needs to be at the lower end of as many of the axes as possible. For example:
Infertile - transwomen can't give birth so a tick here
Poor - if we are to believe the Patreon begging they're all in desperate need
Female - of course
Non-white - a tick in this case
Gay/Lesbian - since words mean nothing, anything can be assumed as an identity
Transgender - of course
Disabled - seems par for the course

@Needmoresleep

Socially/culturally in the US simple sex segregation would probably be near impossible.

Why do you think this? This is not a gotcha or otherwise; I wonder if I'm missing something?

Planet, what Nauticant saud

From what I've read, I don't think Morehouse College even had a chance to refuse to accept gender identity as the basis for admission.

Too many state laws protecting gender identity, with the cultural acceptance that goes with it. Bad here. Worse over there.

the policy is discriminatory against trans women students

But, but. but

Trans women are women #nodebate

And this is a Men's College. So TWs not eligible.

Oh I do so want to feel sorry for them ...

Oops. Sounds like someone went to put the milk bottles out on the front step in their bath robe, and the wind blew the door shut behind them.

@Needmoresleep and @nauticant

Too many state laws protecting gender identity, with the cultural acceptance that goes with it. Bad here. Worse over there.

It depends on how you look at it I think.

Cultural acceptance is grand or non-existent depending on where you look. The US is an individualist society/culture like the UK but US is beginning to lean more collectivist. Because the US is a country born of immigrants and is very young there really isn't a bonafide US culture able to be observed consistently from state-to-state or even city-to-city.

Just like everywhere else in the world the loudest voices are heard and many that disagree tend to be meek or less vocal - e.g. my father and stepmother attend a Non-denominational Christian Church which denounces the T but embraces all races/nationalities and LGB, they are kind and meek but fear that the T explosion is a sign of "the end of days"... they do not vilify the individuals but the ideology as it conveys that the creator made mistakes (an impossibility in their eyes, hearts, and minds). While I see the world differently some of my perspective on gender dysphoria is congruent with theirs (the facts, not the ethereal). Many that disagree are silent while the minority believing TWAW and TMAM is loudly in public and quietly in law pushing their agendas.

While in no way shape or form am I a fan of Trump and his antics, but I really appreciate that his administrationrescinded Obama's guidance (not law but guidance in interpretation) on gender identity being protected under 'sex' (Title IX only bars discrimination based on a student’s biological sex under Trump admin interpretation and guidance for enforcement). I don't like Trump but I have to give credit when and where it is due.

20 US states and DC have education anti-discrimination laws explicitly protecting LGBT students; 30 states as well as Puerto Rico and Guam do not have any state protections in place. Some states specifically protect LGB and not T.

Just because those laws are on record doesn't mean that courts will uphold them if challenged.

Federal law provides no protection in education beyond protected classes i.e. Race, Color, Religion or creed, National origin or ancestry, Sex, Age, Physical or mental disability, Veteran status, Pregnancy, Genetic information, and Citizenship.

Public schools are subject to federal anti-discrimination laws as they receive federal funds, but aren't really enforced unless challenged (rare). State laws guide these institutions on how to further uphold protected classes but typically are not enforced until challenged (rarer still).

Religious private education institutions are not subject to anti-discrimination laws in education or employment as long as they don't receive federal funds and are not subject to state anti-discrimination laws as long as they don't participate in state funded voucher programs. They are able to refuse education and employment to anyone (including disabled individuals). If they accept federal funds, they are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin - NOTE sex is not protected). In regards to Title IX, these organizations are exempt “to the extent that application of Title IX would be inconsistent with the religious tenets of the organization”. The majority of private schools in the U.S. are religious, so they have a great deal of wiggle room in regards to all protected classes.

Private (not religious) education institutions are subject to Title IX protections but due to Trump's interpretation guidance as mentioned above sex-based discrimination is only prohibited based on one's biological sex. All-girls/women or all-boys/men schools are exempt from Title IX sex protection and as a result are legally able to restrict their admissions accordingly.

In regards to changing your sex on your birth certificate, most US states have it codified into law - I firmly disagree with this as you are born a sex and should not be able to change your birth records to reflect how you feel even if you had full reassignment surgery. There are other ways to handle fully reassigned individuals without destroying the validity of birth certificates and confusing governmental authorities. The US sends SSA checks to dead people, truly disabled people have problems gaining disability benefits while some abusers are able to gain access, voter fraud is rampant in certain states, and somehow the state and federal governments think they can keep gender identity straight with altered birth certificates in play (yeah right).

Fortunately the US does not have a federal self-ID policy in place and while it appears it's being pushed it does not appear to have gained any traction in legislation (but then again most of this legislation is being codified under the veil of night so I could be wrong).

TLDR; US private sex-segregated schools are legal and exempt from sex anti-discrimination laws (even when receiving federal funds). Morehouse College (under law) has every right to reject students admission whether TW (based on gender identity) or TM (based on sex).

My ultimate point is there is a great deal of nuance in US education class protections and varies greatly from state-to-state, however, a plethora of exemptions and applications thereof protect private educational institutions (even when they don't invoke said exemptions until pushed by litigation).

That is hilarious. I hope the “femmes”
Spreads as an alternative to ACTUAL WOMAN.

Aren't male-only spaces supposed to be so dangerous for TW that they must have entrance to female ones? Why is this college different? I bet they don't have many female toilets at Moorhouse College. What about dorms?, they're going to be male-only too. Their identity is going to be under attack every day.

If the college had said "TW are welcome here because we know they're really men" there would have been an uproar too. They can't win. Basically whatever the special snowflakes want is what the special snowflakes should get. No rules. even the ones they make up themselves, should apply.