JOHN S. ROSENBERG: Smith College Confronts Transgender [sic] Issues.

Smith explained that it does not discriminate against transgender [sic] students who are enrolled and indeed boasts that it “has a diverse and dynamic student body that includes individuals who identify as transgender [sic]. Students at Smith, whatever their gender [sic] identity or gender [sic] expression are diverse, accomplished, and various in their views.” Nevertheless, it insisted, “[i]n its mission and legal status, Smith is a women’s college … and expects that, to be eligible for review, a student’s application and supporting documentation (transcripts, recommendations, etc.) will reflect her status as a woman.” . . .

The protesters are protesting, a leader of the demonstrations stated, because they “want the college to accept a supplemental letter with an application that attests that the applicant while identified as male on high school transcripts identifies and lives as a woman.”

Unclear from the material I have seen, however, is how both Smith and its protesting students would feel about female-to-male transgender [sic] applicants. . . .

Here’s another question, and not just for Smithies: since our new understanding of civil rights, resting as it does on the assumption that gender [sic] and race are “social constructs,” regards self-identification as the controlling determinant of individual identity and thus requires Smith to classify as a woman anyone who says she’s a woman, should not all institutions regard as black or Hispanic anyone who says he or she is black or Hispanic, regardless or color or contradictory information in the student’s records? Should not a refusal to do so, a refusal to regard a student as black simply because he or she is not, well, black be regarded as blatant racial discrimination?

Earlier: If We Can Pick Our Gender [sic], Can We Pick Our Age? Our Race?