As I started the article I thought, hmmm, this sounds familiar... And lo and behold I know the Smithie Rey's dating.

What a great, sympathetic article! We have this blow up at Smith in student forums all the time. It's affirming to see that she basically made the same argument I always do: that women's colleges are places for women to explore themselves and challenge the limitations of gender and sex, and therefore our trans brothers are not out of place.

And to the Moho alums who are worried about women's space being co-opted- it's not like the boys will ever be a majority at women's colleges. And no, it's not their space, as men. But it's a safe space for them, and I have no problem with them being here. The more the merrier.

Addendum- I am also in the unpopular minority when I say that women's colleges should also be more welcoming for transwomen.

from the article:

"And some professors make sure to ask students to fill out slips indicating their preferred names and pronouns."

That kicks ass. Anyone out there who whines about trans-friendly measures should think about how much they help the rest of us too. When the professor doesn't just call students what the rosters do, students whose full names don't fit in the database blanks and/or who prefer their middle names are better off. When a pair of single-occupant bathrooms aren't single-sex anymore, you can go faster instead of waiting in line behind one while the other is empty. ;)

"In the first week of September, he found out that his roommates had complained to the college’s freshman housing director about being asked to share their rooms with a man. They wanted Rey to find somewhere else to live."

Now that's a tough one. They didn't sign up for a coed dorm room, after all. If they accepted Rey's identity they couldn't accept him as a roommate and if they accepted Rey being their roommate they'd be rejecting his identity.

If only all dorms had enough singles for everyone who doesn't prefer having roommates.

"And to the Moho alums who are worried about women's space being co-opted- it's not like the boys will ever be a majority at women's colleges."

That reminds me of how HBCUs don't reject any applicants for not being black and still are majority-black.

Maybe someday there will also be historically-women's colleges that stay majority-female even while accepting some applicants who aren't female?

Meanwhile, speaking of single-sex schools and HBCUs, I just realized that Moho can stand for both Mount Holyoke and Morehouse.

It's interesting that you post this because two of my friends were arguing about trans issues just last night.
Trans issues are often talked about at my school - Oberlin - and we have a lot of gender neutral bathrooms, etc. Having never heard of trans or 'ze' and 'hir' before coming to college, I am always struggling to come to grips with trans issues and challenge my own transphobia, etc.
Thanks for posting this article.
It was really good, really informative. It sums up a lot of the arguments that people talk about when they talk about female safe spaces v. trans safe spaces on campus.

Mina: Maybe someday there will also be historically-women's colleges that stay majority-female even while accepting some applicants who aren't female?

Since women are the majority of college students overall, it would be unlikely for a historical women's college to cease being majority-female even if it's application process became completely sex-blind.

"Since women are the majority of college students overall, it would be unlikely for a historical women's college to cease being majority-female even if it's application process became completely sex-blind."

Yeah. I should have been clearer. I was thinking female majority less like the way many schools are already 50something% female and more like the way I heard some HBCUs are 90something% black.

That would be less likely, yes. But then, if we're thinking in terms of what we would like to see happen "maybe someday," wouldn't one want the entire concept of ethnic and sex based colleges to become obsolete? They are, as far as I can tell, primarily a holdover from a time when they were the only higher education option available to members of their respective groups.

"But then, if we're thinking in terms of what we would like to see happen 'maybe someday,'"

Thanks for pointing out another way I wasn't clear enough. I was thinking more in terms of what's possible, not just in terms of what I would like to see.

Definitely an interesting read.
I highly recommend Transgeneration, the documentary series from the Sundance Channel that was briefly mentioned in the article. It's available on DVD as well.

They are, as far as I can tell, primarily a holdover from a time when they were the only higher education option available to members of their respective groups.

You are mistaken. Women's colleges are places where the normative figure of a student or faculty member is female, rather than an ostensibly "genderless" student that really functions as male, and feminism is taken as a given in one's studies. Women's colleges are often at the forefront of feminist activism, as we see here, and provide safe spaces and places of connection to a wide variety of students. They are places where, often for the first time, students can see that women are the normal and expected people to see in positions of leadership and excellence.

They have come a long way from their inceptions, and they are not "primarily" holdovers by any means.

this article is really fresh... as is trangeneration... there was a multi-part special i remember seeing on logo a ways back about trans folks at smith, in fact, too, but i'm spacing on the name.

at any rate, the real reason i'm posting on here is directed at speaksoapcube...

OBERLIN!!! yeah.

oh, yeah, and, right on, eg. that kind of goes, in a sense, for HBCUs, but with a different bent. while, historically, a lot of women's universities and HBCUs were formed for the purpose described above, they have unique values to them now which far exceed being "holdovers."

I'm a Smithie and am constantly appalled by many Smith students' refusal to accept the trans community on campus.

It's surprising how negative students, even lesbian-identified students, can be about and toward transmen on campus. ugh.

Interesting article. It was quite the pickle those roommates were in as stated above. Great to see something like this in the MSM, it does not happen nearly enough. I do wonder if we will see some more mens colleges in the future if the numbers continue to drop. Outside of yeshivas and the like, there are what, 5 or 6 "mens" colleges? None of which even begin to approach the size of the womens colleges. At some point, if the numbers/trend keeps up, will men require male only schools in an effort to increase the number going to college? A shame that trans people would probably not be nearly as well received at a mens college.

Am I the only one who's grown kind of weary of the preoccupation with/fetishization of transmasculinity (at least, insofar as it adheres to "respectable" specimens of college educated, mostly white, financially stable, able-bodied ftms?) it's possible that my expectations are simply too high but I can't find myself getting particularly thrilled just because the Times ran a piece that doesn't make us all look like freakshows. The fact that the article runs 7 pages without ever mentioning transwomen, or actually tackling the question of transphobia in any kind of substantive manner whatsoever, seems like pretty big omissions to me.

Anyway, it really grinds my gears that the times will jump at the opportunity to profile a bunch of white collegiate transment--and the feminist blogosphere will follow suit--but when transgendered folks are jobless, homeless, doing survival sex, and getting murdered right here in the city (ahem, Sanesha Stewart) nobody can be bothered to notice.

I just really hope that the kinds issues this article addresses don't become--or rather dont remain at--the forefront of the trans movement.

"The fact that the article runs 7 pages without ever mentioning transwomen, or actually tackling the question of transphobia in any kind of substantive manner whatsoever, seems like pretty big omissions to me."

Yeah, the writer should have clarified at the beginning that the article was just about transmen at college in America, rather than about transsexuals in America in general, in the first place.

Regarding the comment about single-sex colleges being outdated, I heartily disagree. I went to an all-girl high school, and am certain that it helped me become assertive and confident. While I don't agree with some of their points (that there is a "female learning style", for one), here is a good resource on the subject: http://www.newleafacademy.com/advantages.html
Having attended an all-girls high school, I believe that while all-woman colleges ought to continue to work with students who entered as female, they should not be criticized for lacking facilities for male-identified students. On the contrary, it is unreasonable to expect a school that is intended for women to accommodate students who identified openly as male when they applied. It would also be unreasonable to expect acceptance from female roommates, even at a co-ed college, who are asked to share a room with a male-identifying person. At a women's college, such a situation sounds even more invasive. (A better response would have been to make an exception and give him a single, since Barnard had already admitted him.)
There must be Ivy-caliber colleges that aren't all-woman, so why apply to Barnard? Still, I don't know Rey's perspective on this; he may have his reasons. It's hardly likely that the college will become majority-transmen, so leeway there doesn't seem like a problem -- I just wonder why he would choose a college where it was so probable that he would feel alienated because of his gender.
On that note, I find it a bit weird that the author says Rey was a woman when he entered college... from the article, it appears he was already out and identifying as male before he began applying to colleges.

"There must be Ivy-caliber colleges that aren't all-woman, so why apply to Barnard?"

That's assuming the choice of where to apply and where to attend was entirely his.

Keep in mind the way a lot of U.S. colleges and universities, and some U.S. federal financial aid programs, calculate financial aid. Usually they want info about the student's parents'/guardians' finances as well as the finances of the student herself or himself. What if a school tells a student "this year we expect you to contribute $300, your parents to contribute $10,000, and we'll give you grants and loans for the rest" and then the parents tell her or him "we won't chip in that $10,000 for just any school you want, we'll only pay if you attend [specific school or specific type of school]"?

I've heard of financial aid making exceptions for students who are at least 24 years old, aged out of foster care, are married, were in the military, etc. but it's probably much more difficult to get an exception because the parents don't like the school or the student enough.

Meanwhile, there's the living-with-parents factor. Lots of people apply to college while they're still in high school, living with and depending on their parents. Even if one's parents would reluctantly pay for a school they dislike, they could still complain about it every day in person for months and not every 17-year-old can withstand that pressure.

I don't know, Mina, while I see what you're saying (and go to school with a LOT of kids like that) it doesn't really sound like that was the case in Rey's situation at least. According to the article, he chose Barnard because he felt that there would be a greater chance of him being accepted there than at a coed school - a pretty reasonable assumption if you ask me, considering the different ways that men typically "defend" their masculinity and women typically "defend" their femininity. If I had to face the choice that he did, between possibly being killed or "merely" being ostracized, I would choose the latter too.

I am also in the unpopular minority when I say that women's colleges should also be more welcoming for transwomen.

Just wanted to second this CScarlet. If we're honoring the self-identified sex of the individual trans folks, it actually makes more sense--in the context of an all-women's space (like an all-women's college)--to accept applications from trans women, since they're women, than trans men who are male.

Though, given that trans men (at least form the article) seem to find women's colleges more queer friendly, and that they may only be starting to transition in college, it makes sense not to bar them either.

Of course, women's colleges and the ethics of maintaining them are a whole separate issue. I am really on the fence about the helpfulness of women-only spaces, even though I hear and appreciate some of the really strong arguments for maintaining them. If we're maintaining them, however, I think it's imperative that we accept peoples' own self-definition when it comes to saying who is able to be a part of that space. All women who self-identify as women should be welcome, full stop.

Why would someone who identifies as male and is an FTM apply to an all-woman's school? An FTM is male, just like MTFs are women. If you went to an average transwoman or transman on the street, and deliberately used the wrong pronouns and their old names-well, you can imagine the reaction you'd get.

If Barnard allows FTMs to enter as freshman, then they should allow cis-men the honor of attending their college. I also think that FTMs who do stuff like this are betraying their male gender, and still using their privilege of being born with a vagina and xx chromosomes to enter women's only spaces.

Its like the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival anti-trans woman policy that allows FTMs-it denies FTMs the right to be recognized as male. Unless you specifically identify as genderqueer, gender neutral, use neutral pronouns, etc. you can't have it both ways when you transition from female to male.

Sorry, this really pisses me off.

"Why would someone who identifies as male and is an FTM apply to an all-woman's school?"

Parents (see above).

Arc, are you serious? Did you read the piece, because I thought it did a pretty good job of explaining why women's colleges can be appealing for ftms.

Of course we want our identities (and pronouns, etc) to be respected... but to say "an ftm is male; an mtf is female, period" is for many of us a gross (and offensive) oversimplification of our lives, experiences, histories, and identities.

To be more specific, the piece spoke to the fact that womens' colleges are traditionally places that are queer friendly, generally more politically progressive, more feminist-inclined; and, as waxghost already noted, when tertiary education is a choice between a real threat of physical violence versus a more nebulous sense of potential alienation, the latter choice is usually preferable. It's not like we have an extensive menu of trans-friendly colleges available, so that transmen would choose ones that have established themselves as being sensitive to issues pertaining gender doesn't seem like a huge shocker to me.

I don't think its unreasonable to expect traditionally women's spaces to be welcoming to people who experience subjugation based on their gender. Advocates for trans-inclusion in traditionally women's spaces have often pushed for policies that would admit anyone who *ever* identified as a woman. To suggest that allowing FTMs into traditionally women's-only spaces must *necessarily* constitute a refutation of their maleness is completely reductive and silly.

"I don't think its unreasonable to expect traditionally women's spaces to be welcoming to people who experience subjugation based on their gender. Advocates for trans-inclusion in traditionally women's spaces have often pushed for policies that would admit anyone who *ever* identified as a woman. To suggest that allowing FTMs into traditionally women's-only spaces must *necessarily* constitute a refutation of their maleness is completely reductive and silly."

Now you are being silly. Name one trans-activist who has said that, and supply the quote and reference.

Someone who is an FTM and *currently* identifies as a male should not be applying to all-women's colleges. That's the whole point of transitioning! Again, its the same as denying their transition to the appropriate gender. A transman is a guy, a man, not a woman.

I realize that there are transpeople who decide to chuck the gender binary, to
not identify as female or male, but for most transpeople, that's not the case.

Now, if Barnard College is fully supportive of out, full time 18 year old transwomen who want to attend, I'll eat my words. But, allowing an FTM (who is a GUY) into an all woman's environment, just makes a mockery out of transpeople as well as the definition of an "all womens environment."

At any rate, many of the arguments in favor of admitting FTM individuals into all-women colleges require significant mission-creep. "Helping transsexuals and gays avoid violence," is a bit of a jump from, "provide high quality higher education for women."

I actually found this article pretty offensive, as did quite a few of my transman friends.

Yes, it doesn't hurl abuse at us, and from any of the NY papers, perhaps this is something to be proud. However, it is pretty fetishising - it places transmen as kind of like the ultimate genderfucking uber-butch lesbian, and shows not much respect for their identities. It also wins appropriation points for failing to recognise the existence of transwomen, for we're a little harder to fit into that particular cissexual narrative.

I really wish cissexual bloggers - and especially those who profess to be allies - would try and check their privilege a little more often, so they might see how something like this could be really that offensive.

"Helping transsexuals and gays avoid violence," is a bit of a jump from, "provide high quality higher education for women."

You know, I'm not convinced it is. Part of providing high quality higher education for women is creating a space in which women's concerns are taken seriously and addressed, and part of that is creating a space in which sexual violence and gender-based violence is taken seriously. Many of these colleges are already deeply invested in honestly addressing and preventing such violence in order to create an atmosphere conducive to learning, and trans people need such an atmosphere as well.

My gut reaction was not admirable, I must admit: it was a sort of "transwomen, yes of course, but if you want to identify as a man, you don't get to go to a women's college." But ultimately, I think my gut was being irrational, bigoted, and unproductive. I doubt that there will be so many young transmen who want to go to women's colleges that the colleges' mission to create a normative feminist female space of learning will be negatively affected. I think it will only benefit feminist study to have the voices of transmen included. And I think that not having to worry about being beaten up in a locker room will allow transmen to have the educational experience that we all deserve. So my gut can shut it.

Eh, I guess my immediate point of reference re, gender admission policies were women's sex parties in NYC that have amended their policies to be trans-inclusive (see, eg, Submit http://web.mac.com/submitparty/iWeb/Submit%20Party/Gender%20Policy.html)-- i am aware that the camp trans folks are not interested in advocating for an FTM-inclusive MichFest. I could have sworn I read an article by Rikki Wilchins or Kate Bornstein that used the phrase "anyone who's ever IDed as female" because I can't imagine how else that language would have popped into my head but that's not very useful cause I can't find any citations to that effect at the moment.

ANYWAY. TBH, I do on some level understand the sentiment of "why would a man want to go to a women's college" (I personally would not)... though I do think it would be advisable to retain a degree of critical perspective towards such attitudes. I suppose my main question would be, if you want to make allowances for genderqueers or gnc folks on the FTM spectrum, at what point are you going to be drawing the line at who doesn't "belong" at women's colleges. If I *look* like a man to you but I identify as genderqueer, do I get to go to Barnard? What about if I identify as a man but have chosen to eschew medical transition so I present as androgynous... maybe the realities of my physical appearance mean that a women's school is an attractive choice for me. How exactly are you going to police that? My concern is that the reactions against transmen attending women's schools stem from the same kind of trans invasion panic that anti-MTF inclusion people feel. ("OMG there's going to be ppl with PENISES who were raised with MALE PRIVILEGE flooding my safe space!" --I'm not sure it's any less transphobic to be like, "OMG why do these MEN who live as MEN and are basically the same as any other MAN want to have their cake and eat it too by coming to my school?")

oh btw, rebeca, I found the piece to be awfully FTM-fetishistic and MTF-phobic too... that whole schtick is so completely played out. And like I mentioned already it really blows my mind that that author can write for 7 pages with absolutely zero substantive examination of transphobia... that I find to be quite insulting to all our identities.

THANK YOU talknormal for your first comment! Honestly, I think this is a "great" article only if our standards are set way low. (And to be fair, most mainstream media representations of trans people have only given us every reason to keep them there.) I have to ask: just because it's addressing a trans issue, does it automatically get off the hook for addressing any other aspects of the very real diversity of people's lives?

It's not about "transgender students at our nations colleges." It's about FTMs, which is fair enough, as narrowing down the topic may allow more depth. But the fact that it's about white kids who can afford to go to the Ivy League-standard college of their "choice" seems less like a reasonable focus than a bunch of bullshit. What would actually be refreshing to me would be something that acknowledged that not all trans college students are upper-middle class, and some might even go to *gasp* public schools!

Seriously, I suppose that the conflicts transmen bring to private women's campuses is interesting, but it represents the experiences of only a small proportion of transmen in college. What about students in rural areas who don't have easy access to hormones? What about folks who actually have to work their way through, much less be able to pay at least 6-7 grand out of pocket for surgery? What about people whose parents don't financially support them because they aren't able to or because of their coming out as trans?

I guess it's just kind of like, woohoo, it's in the NYT magazine and it's not slander! But as for an insightful, nuanced look at what trans students in college deal with, it really falls short of the mark, or at least my mark anyway.

Rebecca and talknormal: Is "FTM-fetishizing" a term in its own right, or does it kind of mean "condescending" or something along those lines? I'm sort of having trouble figuring out its meaning.

oh, yay... i was going to big up talknormal and rebecca, too, because i was afraid y'all's comments would be swallowed up in other conversation, but they're really important.

unfortunately, i think it's a ways off before there are universities which make it their explicit mission to being open to people who operate outside of forced "normative" gender roles. that said, this emphasizes the point about women's colleges and universities and hbcus in regards to how they are not always exclusive, but still, overwhelmingly, draw their target student populations.

also, antimony, i think you hit the nail on the head... in that it's a small step in the right direction for the msm in that the story is not downright derogatory. it is still a long way to go, though, and far from exemplary.

peace