Co-ed to parents: my roommate has a dick

Daniella Greenbaum writes in WSJ about Mount Holyoke College, the liberal arts college for women in Massachusetts:

Mount Holyoke will accept applications from anyone on the gender spectrum — except those who were born male and still identify as male. In other words: men.
...
But [Ms. Pasquarella] said students can’t indicate in advance their preferences regarding a roommate’s gender identity. That would be discriminatory. The school wouldn’t consider such a request, she said, “the same way we wouldn’t take into account the request of someone who said, ‘I don’t want to live with a black person.’”

Presumably, then, Mount Holyoke would admit a person who was "born male, but does not still identify as male," but, if you are a young woman, you would not be able to request that you not be assigned said person as a roommate.

Gee, parents are going to be really happy with that one: freshman girl texts mom and dad: "I just unpacked and my roommate is walking around the room with a bra on and his - er, her?? - dick and balls hanging out. Gag me with a spoon!"

It is also interesting to note the circumlocutions we need to go through these days to identify the gender of people. Instead of calling them simply "men," we must resort to expressions like "those who were born male and still identify as male; in other words, men." (I'm still not really sure about that one. Do they mean, like, for reals men?) If I say "freshman girl" instead of "person who was born with a vagina and still identifies as a female and who is in her first year of college," is it a micro-aggresion?

I also note that the phrase in the WSJ article "[persons who are] born male and still identify as male" implies that it is possible to switch the way one gender-identifies. That is, if there is a time when one still identifies as a male, that implies that there may come a later time when one no longer identifies as a male. The WSJ article provides an example of this very phenomenon:

Mount Holyoke President Lynn Pasquerella, when I asked her how the school is navigating these gender cross-currents, told me a story. A young Muslim woman attending Mount Holyoke was assigned a dormitory roommate who was born female but at some point as they lived together began identifying as male. The Muslim student objected on religious grounds, telling the administration that because she accepted her roommate’s chosen male identity, she could no longer live in their room comfortably. Ms. Pasquerella said the school resolved the matter by separating the students — a result that satisfied both parties.

That is, the roommate was born female and identified as a female for most of her life, but "began identifying as male at some point."

But, if it is possible for a woman to begin identifying as male at some point, isn't it also possible for that woman to stop identifying as male at some later point? Conversely, if it is possible for a man to begin identifying as female at some point, isn't it also possible for that man to stop identifying as a female at some later point? And what implications does that have for the young woman who might be forcibly assigned the born-male-but-no-longer-identifies-as-such as a roommate? The born-male-but-no-longer-identifies-as-such obviously stopped identifying as male at some point. But, such a switch implies that it is possible for him (her?) to start identifying once again as male at some later point. And what if he (she?) does so in the middle of the night in the dark as his (her?) roommate sleeps in the bed next to him (her)? Cetera quis nescit?

It is astonishing that universities will pass a myriad of regulations to prevent young men from raping women, but, apparently, will resist taking simple common sense steps to separate young men whose gender identification has been inconstant over time from sleeping in the same room with young female roommates. Of course, exactly the same logic applies if we are talking about allowing men who (currently) gender-identify as women to use women's lavatories. If your young daughter has just walked into the women's lavatory in the park, it is quite possible that this may be the very moment at which a man who gender identifies as a woman may also walk into the lavatory and start to gender-identify as a man again, with potentially highly undesirable consequences for your daughter.

Ovid banished once again

In 8 AD, the Latin poet Ovid was exiled by the emperor Augustus from Rome, the cultural center of the world at that time, to Tomis, a tiny settlement on the Black Sea near the Danube, essentially to the ends of the earth. Ovid continued to write poetry in exile, including the Tristia, a collection of letters bemoaning his fate and lobbying for a pardon. In the Tristia, the poet states that the reason for his banishment was "carmen et error," that is, "I wrote a poem and made a mistake." According to Wikipedia:

Most believe that the "carmen", that is, the "poem" that Ovid refers to is the Ars Amatoria. Many believe that Augustus — who presented himself as the restorer of Roman public morality — could not fail to punish the author of a work who presented himself as a master of adultery and obscenity.

2000 years later, Ovid has once again been banished on moral grounds from the cultural center of the world, this time, New York City. As WSJ reports:

With school out for the summer, Columbia [University in NYC] is making changes to next year’s required reading that reflect some student concerns. Ovid’s Metamorphoses — a book students said was potentially offensive because of its sexual violence — is out, and a Toni Morrison novel was added.

In spite of Augustus' banishment of Ovid 2000 years ago, the poet's works have been disseminated around the world and have served as an inspiration for many of the greatest masters of Western art, including the poets Chaucer, Dante, Boccaccio and Shakespeare (see the table of contents in the collection of essays Reception of Ovid, edited by John Miller and Carole Newlands), the painter Titian (see here), and the sculptor Bernini (see here and here). In spite of Columbia's priggish new banishment of Ovid this summer, the poet will continue to serve as an inspiration for artists and for students of the psychology of (sometimes violent) passion and love.

The Greeks have voted

And it is time to give them what they want. Kick them out of the EU.

And, btw, it is a sign of how utterly out of touch the Greek government is that they think that forcing the resignation of Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis is a conciliatory move. It is simply laughable.

In our great zeal

In our great zeal to use government to make society more just and fair and to level every inequality, we succeed only in making government more coercive and in subjecting ourselves more and more to the norms of an inexorable administrative elite.

The idiot Krugman recommends no vote

Predictably, the idiot Krugman urges the Greeks to vote no on the referendum to decide whether they should accept their creditors' ultimatum:

I would vote no, for two reasons. First, much as the prospect of euro exit frightens everyone — me included — the troika is now effectively demanding that the policy regime of the past five years be continued indefinitely. Where is the hope in that? Maybe, just maybe, the willingness to leave will inspire a rethink, although probably not. But even so, devaluation couldn’t create that much more chaos than already exists, and would pave the way for eventual recovery, just as it has in many other times and places. Greece is not that different.

Second, the political implications of a yes vote would be deeply troubling. The troika clearly did a reverse Corleone — they made Tsipras an offer he can’t accept, and presumably did this knowingly. So the ultimatum was, in effect, a move to replace the Greek government. And even if you don’t like Syriza, that has to be disturbing for anyone who believes in European ideals.

Devaluation couldn't create much more chaos than already exists? Paul, are you kidding? The chaos has only just begun. On Friday, Greeks had free access to euros; today, Monday, they do not. If Greeks are forced to issue their own currency, then, exactly which importers, Paul, will accept payment in the worthless drachmas of a country that has shown itself completely unwilling to abide by its financial obligations, and then spat in the face of and vilified its creditors as criminals to boot?

As is apparent from the reaction of global markets today, the impact of a Grexit outside of Greece will be minor. Greece itself, however, is faced with the prospect of becoming a modern-day Albania. Given this prospect, replacing the Greek government is not such a bad option.

Tsipras, Khamenei, Merkel/Hollande, and Obama

Just as Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has strung along the Eurozone for months now, so Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei continues to play Obama for the fool.

At least now it seems that Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande have finally called Tsipras' bluff, whereas Obama shows no signs that he is ready or able to stand up to the Supreme Leader.

A Greek Pinochet

In the good old days, a Greek junta would have staged a coup by now and put an end to all the chaos created by Syriza in Greece, just as Pinochet and the Chicago Boys, with assistance from the CIA, put an end to all the chaos created by Allende in Chile.

For more reflections on the parallels between Chile/Allende/Pinochet and Greece/Tsipras/?, see here. See also here for the reflections of Finnish politiician Jussi Halla-aho on a junta in Greece.