I was hoping YOU would comment! Thanks for the information. So, does that mean these organizations aren't considered traditional "social" organizations?

oooh. that's interesting. thanks.

Good point.

Hypothetical question... what if you showed up to your organization's convention, and there was someone in the crowd that stuck out like a sore thumb. A male, wearing your letters. Upon investigation, you find out that he was once a female, and had joined your organization 20 years earlier, as a female. How would you feel?

(And guys, same question to you if you knew a female had gained membership in college as a male)

This is one of those situations I'm not sure about. Legally speaking (and strictly legally, not emotionally or traditionally), is someone who is transsexual LEGALLY their original sex?

How I would feel about it would depend on whether she had "beaten" the system or not. If she is still legally a man, and my frat's bylaws say that we're open to men, then dammit, I will just have to treat her the same as I would every other brother.

But if she was breaking a rule, I feel like I would point and laugh at the tranny.

LOL! In response to your comment, though, people can get their birth certificates amended. It's a long and difficult process, but it's possible. Then, it's a fight from that point on. You have to get your social security information, driver's license information and other legal information/documents changed to match. And, even then, some states will discriminate.

I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine a person could get his/her birth certificate changed, join a GLO and the GLO would be able to defend itself based on the birth certificate if a legal issue ever arose.

True story: I once did see some brothers who looked like stud lesbians.

I was EXTRA confused. But I ain't ask shizzat.... I was like "None of my business, no sirree"

If you mean are they "social" within the meaning of Title IX, then yes they are social.

No, I don't think they'd lose the exemption, although practically it might not matter anymore.

I've heard this before -- that little sister/brother organizations were basically banned because of Title IX concerns, but I'm not sure how true that is. I think risk management was a much larger concern. (My fraternity classifies the policy banning auxilliary groups as a risk management policy.) There may have been some concern that little sister/brother groups constituted some kind of de facto "co-edness," and that if someone wanted to sue they might have a foothold, but I think that's unrelated to Title IX.

Title IX forbids schools (primary, secondary or college) that receive federal funds (including student aid) from recognizing or sponsoring single-sex organizations. There is a specific exemption for the "membership practices . . . of a social fraternity or social sorority which is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of Title 26, the active membership of which consists primarily of students in attendance at an institution of higher education." (Other organizations, like Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are also exempt.)

This exemption means that social fraternities and sororities are not required to be co-ed, that they do not have to choose between single-sex status and school recognition. Professional fraternities did face such a choice -- go co-ed or go away, basically.

But I don't see why a social fraternity cannot choose to be co-ed and still be a social fraternity.

Amie, I did your survey. It seems like a very interesting topic. I'll admit that I answered the question as to whether or not I would want a transgendered person in my sorority and I said no. Please let us know how your research goes!

Gotcha.

From the way I heard it, Little Sisters was more a risk management thing then anything else. There was also problems with Little Sisters playing Composite Bingo and that causing problems among the the brothers.

I actually heard that from a brother at one of my other chapters and started cracking up.

Composite bingo made my day! If only abolishing auxiliary groups stopped that from happening!

I thought that I had read that Delta Chi banned auxiliary groups because of Title IX, but now I cannot for the life of me find the Fraternity's Statement of Position on the issue. This is the first time my Cornerstone has failed me...

I think it was a combination of Title IX, risk management and NPC pushing it and passing rules (by group) that said if you're an XYZ sorority member you can't be an ABC little sister. Truth be told, as far as my experience went, the best little sister groups had rules that you couldn't be in a sorority - so kind of a reverse "bite me" going on there. (And most of those girls did NOT play composite bingo, either.) But there were some little sister groups that practically all the little sisters were members of the same sorority. (Those girls did play composite bingo. Just saying is all. LOL.)

As far as Chaz Bono showing up to convention, I find it very doubtful that most people who go through the operation would do that. I think they just want to live their lives in a way that makes them happy, not do things that they know would make others uncomfortable.

LOL.

I definitly agree that there is probably a low chance of the situation occurring. Additionally, I feel that many organizations aim to promote a higher form of manhood/womanhood and these values would probably no longer resonate with the individual - and consequently translate into zero alumni involvement.