Has someone of the opposite sex ever tried to pledge to your chapter?
 

I'm wondering if any of you have ever encountered someone of the opposite sex trying to pledge to your sorority or fraternity. Why did they do it? What happened in the end?

We're doing some research at UAA about the role of alternative lifestyles in Greek Life regarding gender, but as far as we know we've never had a man try to join a sorority, or a woman try to join a fraternity. So there aren't any rules about it either.

-Amie
SigmaLove

There aren't rules about it where? I'm positive that most organizations clearly state which gender(s) they are open to.

What I mean by there aren't rules is that at least of the 4 fraternities and sororities we have on campus, there isn't anything codified that defines gender as a standard for membership. For example, in our chapter's bylaws it says we can't deny membership to "anyone" on the basis of sexual orientation, and while all the language uses "her" in other rules, we're trying to consider what happens legally when a male, who identifies as a female, tries to pledge.

I don't consider sexual orientation to be the same as gender identity. You are discussing the latter. Every social organization's bylaws (I am quite sure) will identify which gender they are open to.

There should be a clause in your constitution or bylaws that states that "membership is open to [insert gender]s enrolled in x hours and [any other requirements]"

If a biological male identifies as a female, she is a female (and vice versa). I remember a thread about this. Do a search.

You're right senusret, they aren't the same. My point is that there's very little regarding what constitutes gender identity- I just used the languaged regarding Tri Sigma's stance on orientation to demonstrate that lack of clarity in the word "anyone".

National Panhellenic has this, but it didn't come around until 1995. Wonder why?
1995

Freedom of Association
The women's fraternities of NPC have the right to confine their membership to women, and their right to exist as single-sex organizations shall not be abrogated by any government agency or action. (In accordance with the provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972). Member groups will support the efforts of the United States House of Representatives to protect the rights of students to associate voluntarily in single-sex organizations.

Actually no. I know Psi U places no limits on membership on the national membership.

I think at the point most people have the money and time, and have completely gone through everything (physically in regards to surgery and hormones, and legally regarding name changes), they'd be a bit old for most traditional systems where the students are 18-22. I know of only one, a 16 year old German named Kim Petras, but that's Germany where the whole health care system is different, and in the US there are many issues surrounding the health insurance, employment, housing, and other economic factors of those who are transgendered. I'd guess that many young people in the USA and Canada who are transgendered are not going to have the resources for surgery at a young age, and many have bigger concerns than joining GLOs.

Second to all that I am sure it comes down to membership selection which is private and there may be groups who have a clause about being "a natural born" man or woman and don't advertise that statement. There are all kinds of reasons people aren't chosen for membership that have nothing to do with being transgendered and most of that is never discussed outside of the membership so I doubt gender identity would. I know the state I live in does not legally change birth certificates so

I'm double posting, but "alternative lifestyles" just rubs me the wrong way. That could mean so many things, like nudists, child free people, vegetarians, people who don't have cars, and so on. I can think of people in Fairbanks living in dry cabins as having an "alternative lifestyle" before I'd think of anyone Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, or Queer identifying. If you're talking about gender identity, sexuality, or anything like that, just say what it is you mean.

Oh, and is your research through a particular department or just for a class?

so can a woman join your organization?

Weren't little sister/little brother organizations disbanded, in large part, because they threatened Title IX exemption? If you allow a person of the opposite sex into a single-sex organization, you will lose the exemption altogether.

If you want to intitiate both men and women, it stands to reason that you should voluntarily become a co-ed organization. The only catch is that it's a lot harder to be selective as a co-ed org.

Most co-ed orgs I'm aware of have open membership where anyone can join as long as they meet minimum standards and present no major red flags; whereas in a Title IX exempt org, you have more freedom to pick and choose who joins.

And, there is definitely more than one thread about this issue on Greekchat.

It appears as though the NIC solely admits male-only organizations. Since Psi Upsilon is a member, it seems logical (at least to me) that Psi Upsilon is restricted to male membership only.

Of course, I'm neither a member of an NIC fraternity nor Psi Upsilon, so I can't comment with any authority.

Answering for Vito, but Psi U is a member of the NIC and is co-ed. Delta Psi (aka, St. Anthony Hall), another NIC member, is also co-ed. Both Psi U and Delta Psi are historically all-male, but allowed chapters to go co-ed starting in the late 60s and 70s.

Yeah MC hit it one the nail. Also to clarify, on the national level Psi U is coed. While we never had language in the constitution specifying that somebody had to be a male to be a member, it was kind of understood that you had to be. Then one chapter was forced to admit female brothers by the school and successfully argued that they did nothing against the constitution at our convention. Now it is up to the chapters to choose whether or not to be coed, though most are all male.

What about your national governing documents?

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.

I did a little digging and found a resource on why our fraternity, at least, banned little sister groups. These were the reasons:

1. The formation of auxiliary groups can (and has proven to) adversely affect the relationship between the local chapters of Sinfonia and local chapters of existing music fraternities for women.
2. Women's organizations and female faculty members often consider these auxiliary groups to be demeaning and sexist because the women involved in such groups are faced with the responsibilities of membership without the reward of full membership status in the fraternity.
3. The existence of such groups extends the already-broad range of chapter and national liability.
4. The functioning of a fraternity chapter and little sisters as a common unit at social and other events could jeopardize the Fraternity's single-sex membership, as suggested by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case involving the Jaycees.
5. The existence of another chapter-sponsored group results in the diverting of time, effort, and money, which are needed for chapter operation and programming.
6. Because of the relationship between the groups, brothers sometimes share fraternity secrets with members of the auxiliary group, either knowingly or unknowingly.
7. Many individuals outside the Fraternity world view these organizations as formalized dating services. They are critical also because the women's focus in such groups is totally on the men rather than on their own personal development.

Item # 4 would indicate that a concern for losing single-sex status was indeed involved, but it was not related to Title IX. So I would repeat, I don't think Title IX had anything to do with it -- I frankly don't see how it would. I think it's just that so many people associate single-sex status with Title IX that there is an assumption the two are always related, and they're not.

I still, to increased consternation, cannot find Delta Chi's official position on it. However, after reading your post I've realized that I know the wording is something along the lines of "jeopardizing single sex status" and the Title IX connection was probably a mental connection on my part.

I was in college when auxiliary groups were banned, and there was definite concern on the part of NPC groups (maybe fraternities as well, I don't remember that) that allowing them to continue could jeopardize the single-sex status of both fraternities and sororities. There may have been other factors as well, but that is the reason that we were given.

FOUND IT!

The resolution, passed in 1990, is not as specific as I originally thought - the only mention it makes of reasons for abolishing them is:

I still want to know who is collecting this data, and what it is going to be used for as it wasn't on the survey monkey page. Four classes on research methods in college makes me want to know who is wanting my opinion, under what authority, and why. I couldn't find a PI to contact if I had questions and that is a concern for me.

Should they even have to? Is there a hermaphrodite fraternity?

Theta Chi specifically mentions males.

You don't think it's necessary for an organization to specify who membership is open to?

Hermaphrodite isn't really an acceptable term anymore, and has been replaced with intersexed, which is still completely different than transgendered or transsexual.

It still comes down to membership selection, and as well all know that MS is private the issues and discussion (if any) will likely be handled there.

In response to some of the other questions that have been posed...

If there were no legal repercussions:

1) Would I be willing to accept a transgendered aspirant (physically male/identifies as a woman): YES

2) Would I be willing to accept a transsexual aspirant (born male/reassignment surgery/identifies as a woman): YES

3) Would I be willing to accept a transgendered aspirant (physically female/identifies as a man): Probably not - If you identify as a man, I'd need a really good reason why you want to join a women's organization.

4) Would I be willing to accept a transsexual aspirant (born female/reassignment surgery/identifies as a man): Same as #3

5) Would I recognized a soror who was transsexual/transgendered, identifying as either a man or a woman: YES, without reservation.

Theta Nu Xi specifically indicates that membership is open to women. Like I said, it wouldn't make sense to me that someone identifying as a man would want to join.

We currently have members who consider themselves gender fluid and/or are trying to determine how they will ultimately identify. Gender - as well as other issues - is difficult to determine for many people because there aren't many choices. Either you're a woman or man. There isn't a whole lot else unless you want to endure the cruelty of the world and be your own person.

I consider myself biologically female, but on the scale from man to woman - gender-wise - I dance on the middle line, mostly leaning toward being a woman. That's probably TMI for some folks who are uncomfortable with this topic. If so, blame it on the QNX. ;)