Get on the Erase Women train
The tedium gets ever more tedious.
A women’s college in Virginia has instituted an admissions policy that bars transgender women next school year because of a new interpretation of the founder’s will.
Sweet Briar College, a private women’s liberal arts school, said the policy stems from the legally binding will of its founder, Indiana Fletcher Williams, who died in 1900. Sweet Briar’s leadership said the document requires it to “be a place of ‘girls and young women.’”
So in other words they’re not changing anything, they’re just pointing out that the college is still a girls’ college, as it’s been all along.
The phrase “must be interpreted as it was understood at the time the Will was written,” Sweet Briar’s president and board chair wrote in a letter earlier this month to the college community. The new policy requires an applicant to “confirm that her sex assigned at birth is female, and that she consistently lives and identifies as a woman.”
…
The new guidelines are facing criticism from some students and most faculty. They warn the politically fraught policy could repel potential students — not just transgender women — when women’s colleges have been closing, going co-ed or merging with other schools. Sweet Briar nearly shuttered in 2015.
…
Association President Isabella Paul, a senior who identifies as nonbinary, told the AP that at least 10% of students use different pronouns and wouldn’t fit in the policy’s description of women. “And there are allies here who may identify as women but have friends and lovers and family members who are nonbinary, genderqueer and transgender,” Paul said. “So this is also affecting their pride in their institution.”
Ah yes pronouns, and women who identify as non-binary, and friends and lovers and family members who have their own luxury gender identities – add it all up and you get There Are No Women Left so you might as well admit it and give up. Women are so last century and let’s pretend they just plain don’t exist anymore. That will be Utopia.
Women’s colleges in the U.S. began to admit transgender women about 10 years ago, including Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts and Spelman College, a historically Black school in Atlanta.
“What it means to be a woman isn’t static,” Mount Holyoke’s then-President Lynn Pasquerella told the AP in 2014. “Early feminists argued that reducing women to their biological functions was a foundation of women’s oppression.”
What it means to be a woman isn’t static – ok great so let’s change it to mean “slave born to push out babies and submit to men.” Cool?
Nicholas Hite, a senior attorney with LGBTQ+ rights group Lambda Legal, said Sweet Briar’s policy could be problematic because it explicitly attempts to define for current students what it means to “live and identify as a woman.”
“That’s something that every cis and trans woman should be able to decide for herself,” Hite said.
Right. Every man should be able to decide for himself that he knows what it means to “live and identify as a woman” and that he is a woman and that all women who dispute him are men and should be punished for getting in his way. That is a very good plan and I am very clever.
The faculty senate president said the new policy will likely shrink the pool of already precious applicants.
“It really excludes any student who would be offended by those positions … who doesn’t want to be in a place where discrimination is codified in this way,” Brown said. “I think it’s a financially disastrous decision for the college.”
Yes it’s the height of evil to know the difference between women and men.
That ‘early feminist’ argument has its own validity, but in no way relates to the right of biological females to have, as an easily defined sex, spaces set aside for themselves and legally barred to males.
Creating a right for any biological male who chooses to wear womens’ clothing to invade these spaces creates the ideal cover for the male out to sexually assault one or more of the female occupants. In fact, he would not need to dress as a woman. He could pretend he was following in the footsteps of Marlene Dietrich: a woman who chose to wear mens’ clothing when performing her nightclub act.
The early feminists were talking about reducing women to baby machines; they were not talking about women who were actually men because women can have penises too, right?
They fought against the stereotypes that the gender ideology is busy restoring. I imagine all of them would have been horrified to be told a man could be a woman if he wanted to, so she had to give up all pretense of modesty and be willing to get undressed in front of men, and other equally ‘inoffensive’ outcomes of the ‘we just want to pee’ movement.
So some women will be put off? Those women who help men into womens spaces? Why should other women worry about that, doesn’t this increase the colleges attraction to those other women?
What a deepity! The true but trivial: women are not limited to giving birth and child care. The extraordinary but false: women are not the sex that produces large gametes. The equivocation should be obvious, yet so many people seem incapable of noticing this verbal sleight of hand and instead allow their minds to slip slide.
I think bascule #3 may be right. There are many women’s colleges but apparently only one that’s actually a women’s college. They can corner the market on the reality-based (which will probably consist of classic liberals and mainstream conservatives.)
a senior who identifies as nonbinary, told the AP that at least 10% of students use different pronouns
I’m tempted to reply, “Oh, I can relate. There’s only one of me as well!”
Also, that “10%” don’t “use different pronouns.” They try to force others to use pronouns that don’t match the noun.
Different pronouns? How about incorrect pronouns. The pronouns aren’t different at all.
Forget “identities” and “pronouns”: what sex are they.
These so-called “allies” aren’t allies of women if they’re men forcing their way into female spaces, or encouraging others to do so. That kind of “allyship” isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit. Good riddance. If all these “friends and lovers and family members” can’t see the value in protecting women’s rights, then their opinion doesn’t count for much either. If they’re not attending the school, or are disqualified from attending by not being female, the so what? They should grow up, and get themselves some empathy injections, rather than wrong sex hormones. And doesn’t the infiltration of the school by men, and its surrender to men affect pride that women might have in the institution?
Offended? What about the offence to women of denying them a space of their own? Anyone who is affended by this isn’t ready for higher education, and will unlikely benefit much from whatever schooling they pursue. It will help the women who do attend if this sort of exclusion weeds out the Stalinist/Maoist/Butlerian morons who would be “offended.”
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single woman in possession of a penis, must be indeed a woman.
“Now as before, women must refuse to be meek and guileful, for truth cannot be served by dissimulation. Women who fancy that they manipulate the world by pussy power and gentle cajolery are fools. It is slavery to have to adopt such tactics.”
― Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch
In those early days of feminism it was accepted fact that women were physically, mentally, and emotionally frail compared to me and this was access biological fact. In stark contrast it has to be said to any actual observation of the vast bulk of women who had to toil and physically demanding work while putting up with social attitudes and laws that would have broken most middle class me of the time. But hey.
So, it was quite legitimate of early feminists to fight against biological determinism because that included lots of junk ‘science’, much akin to phrenology and all the other shit that was around and accepted science at the time. I bet none of those feminists denied that women menstruated, bore children, or were clearly distinguishable from men though.
Is it not significant that the Board President’s quoted words suggest that transgenderism is heightening the political legitimisation of originalism and its abuse in (Supreme Court) jurisprudence?