FSUZeta |
02-14-2024 11:11 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by TweedleDee199
(Post 2503783)
Hi. I'm going to chime in with the millenial perspective no one asked for. I know there are plenty of women who have devoted decades of service to their sororities and view acceptance of trans members as a seismic and incomprehensible change. I happened to grow up in a place where acceptance of trans people has been common place for a long time - but I have family members whose experiences and opinions are VERY different from mine. Something I've heard from them a lot is frustration that it feels like they can't have any conversation relating to inclusion of trans people because it just ends with them being yelled at rather than heard. That's completely justified- people should be able to have conversations without feeling talked down to or yelled at. On the other hand, I think a reason a lot of people my age and younger end up frustrated is that they feel like folks who are skeptical of including trans people in certain groups - sports teams, GLOs, etc. - often speak about trans people in an invasive way you just wouldn't speak about a non-trans person. I personally can't say I've ever seen another GC thread that spoke so candidly about a collegiate member's sex organs or speculated on their sexual orientation. I fully believe it's possible to have a civil conversation about how trans or non-binary members fit into GLOs but I would hope it could be done in a way that is respectful of particular individuals.
|
I appreciate you sharing your perspective. I guess for me extending membership to people with male genitalia is dissolving the single sex barrier sororities had up until recently. It doesn’t matter if they feel that they are women. Physically they are not. It’s the same with allowing males to compete on female sports teams. A mediocre male athlete still has a testosterone advantage despite taking female hormones, as proven by the UPenn swimmer. . How fair is that? Why is the NCAA willing to compromise the integrity of womens sports, and negate the chances of hundreds of female athletes success for a minute minority of athletes who couldn’t achieve greatness on the male side of the sport. And why is it that sorority leadership is willing to compromise the comfort and safety( as some of the KKG members expressed in the Artemis article) of its initiated members, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of alumna donations that are drying up, because of these new policies, which were decided on by a committee behind closed doors , not up for vote by the membership at large? These actions marginalize women. The first sororities founded in the Midwest were begun to offer friendship, support, and a haven of safety and comfort to women who were often not welcomed in a male dominated student body. Women need to stand for women first. It should not be “well, if you aren’t comfortable around Artemis or you feel that sororities should not extend membership to transgender people then there’s the door.” It should be, “I hear you sisters. Your feelings are important to us. Let’s take this under consideration and have the entire international membership decide.” But that’s not happening.
|