This blog has been very quiet because I’ve been busy and also ill.

There’s a stir going on in the Wellesley alum and campus communities regarding trans-inclusion and the school’s lack of a cogent admissions policy when it comes to acknowledging and supporting trans students. 

My position is that:
Wellesley is deplorably behind when it comes to supporting trans students. The fact that the school does not admit trans women is a grave injustice that needs to be rectified.

I do not believe that Wellesley should admit any students who identify as male at the time of application, even as I reaffirm my belief that trans men and other people who are not women are part of the Wellesley community and should be better supported on campus and in alum affairs. Gender is not stable or fixed. Among any large group of women, some of them are going to, at some point, realize that they’re not actually women. The college has a responsibility for all of its students. It does not, however, have a responsibility to accept applications from men, and, indeed, it cannot do so while also maintaining its identity and mission as a women’s college. 

There may be more on this shortly as I find time to write, but I stand firmly behind Wellesley as a women’s college, not a “historically women’s college.”

"At first glance, the outside boundary of a body may seem evident, indeed incontrovertible. A coffee mug ends at its outside surface just as surely as people end at their skins. On the face of it, reliance on visual clues seems to constitute a solid empirical approach, bur are faces and solids really what they seem? In fact, an abundance of empirical evidence from a range of different disciplines, considerations, and experiences strongly suggests that visual clues may be misleading. What may seem evident to some is not simply a result of how things are independently of specific practices of seeing and other bodily engagements with the world. Rather, it has become increasingly clear that the seemingly self-evidentiary nature of bodily boundaries, including their seeming visual self-evidence, is a result of the repetition of (culturally and historically) specific bodily performance. In point of fact, the twentieth century has witnessed serious scientific, philosophical, anthropological, and experiential contestations of this seemingly self-evident point of view. Neurophysiologists, phenomenologists, anthropologists, physicists, postcolonial, feminist, queer, science, and disability studies scholars, and psychoanalytic theorists are among those who question the mechanistic conception of embodiment and the presumably inherent nature of bodily boundaries-especially human ones. Cyborg theorists are among those who find it deeply ironic to stop there."

— Karen Barad (Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning)

(Source: postcute, via lovecraftianfeminism)


little hetero things


color coding your infant children

(via lesbian-satan)





"Because of its connection with mother goddesses, the spiral is a very feminine symbol, representing not only women but also a variety of things traditionally associated with women. Besides lifecycles, fertility and childbirth, the spiral can reference intuition and other more internal concepts associated with women" :))))) spiral feminism :)


My kind of “spiral feminism” tbh

(Source: 70s-ghostmiserablisms)



if u are a cis girl, here are some things not to say to trans girls or transfeminine ppl 

  • you do makeup better than I do!
  • you have better legs than I do!
  • you’re prettier than I am! 
  • etc

these compliments are just a way the disguise your shock at the femininity of “fake” women, compared to you, a “real” woman. stop. 

(via lesbian-satan)



“When a man invades a woman’s body space without her invitation, touches, grabs and gropes her without her consent, he violates her sovereignty of person. He evicts her from her own body. Our bodies are our first homes. If we are not safe in our bodies, we are always homeless.” - Shailja Patel


(via stayuglystayangry)

"If white American feminist theory need not deal with the differences between us, and the resulting difference in our oppressions, then how do you deal with the fact that the women who clean your houses and tend your children while you attend conferences on feminist theory are, for the most part, poor women and women of Color? What is the theory behind racist feminism?"

— Audre Lorde (via bad-dominicana)

(via lovecraftianfeminism)



disabled children need to know that they’re worth more than being inspirational objects for abled adults

(via lesbian-satan)



the idea that just because sex is consensual that means it must be healthy is so narrow-minded and really neglects to take into effect how survivors of sexual assault, especially people who were assaulted as children, learn very early on and are groomed to BE hypersexual and to see her self-worth as related to her sexuality

(Source: spookycyborg, via stayuglystayangry)




I’m gonna depress the hell out of all of you. ready? ok go

so, that “stop devaluing feminized work post”

nice idea and all

but the thing is, as soon as a decent number of women enter any field, it becomes “feminized,” and it becomes devalued.

as women enter a field in greater number, people become less willing to pay for it, the respect for it drops, and it’s seen as less of a big deal. it’s not about the job- it’s about the number of women in the job.

observe what happened with biology. it’s STEM, sure, but anyone in a male-dominated science will sneer at the idea of it being ‘for real,’ nevermind that everyone sure took it more seriously when it was a male dominated field. so has happened with scores of other areas; nursing comes to mind

so the thing is, it’s not the work or the job that has to be uplifted and seen as more respectable. it will never work out, until people start seeing women as respectable

but there’s a doozy and who the fuck knows if it’s ever happening in my life time

"observe what happened with biology. it’s STEM, sure, but anyone in a male-dominated science will sneer at the idea of it being ‘for real,’ nevermind that everyone sure took it more seriously when it was a male dominated field."

Personal anecdote time!  I’m in a biology graduate program.  An acquaintance wanted to introduce some guy to me because his son was thinking about becoming an undergrad science major.  When he found out I was in the biology department, he grinned and said, “Well, I guess that’s kind of related to science.”

I gave him what I hope was an icy look and said, “Isn’t it strange how men outside the field started saying that right around the time biology majors shifted from mostly male to mostly female?”

The guy got this look on his face like he was about to play the “just a joke” card, and then an older woman who had been standing nearby, talking to someone else, turned to me and said, “The same thing happened with real estate.”  She went on to explain that, over the course of the career, the male-to-female ratio among real estate agents had dropped, and the pay and “prestige factor” of that job dropped along with it.

(via lesbian-satan)