Would you pledge a transsexual?
 

First off, this is nothing I've personally confronted, I was just idly wondering about it the other day.

Scenario 1 - Pre-Op
Say your GLO had a rushee who was anatomically of the opposite gender from the gender of your GLO (i.e. a male rushing a sorority) but was living as a (insert gender), taking drugs, and planned eventually to have the operation - all other things being equal, would you pledge this person?

Scenario 2 - Post-Op
Say your GLO had a rushee who was anatomically of your gender, but only because they'd recently undergone sex-reassignment surgery - all other things being equal, would you pledge this person?

Not this again......:rolleyes:

I do not care to check anatomy. A transman is a man and I have no issues welcoming one into my fraternity. I wrote about this on my blog earlier this year.

LOL, sorry, have we already been here? I'm new. :o

An advantage of being in a co-ed fraternity is that we get asked this question less. :)

Agreed.

I would absolutely initiate any male-identified individual if they fit the ideals of my Fraternity. I have fought on my campus for this. I could care less if someone has my same parts or not.

Yes.... a time or two.

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...=142098&page=2
http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...d.php?t=126924
http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...d.php?t=103334
http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...d.php?t=117019
http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...d.php?t=111247
http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...t=88559&page=3

For the record, I would not under any circumstances pledge a pre-operative transsexual, due to the significant liability that would come having a single (anatomical) female living in a private home occupied by 40-90 young men.

As for a post-op transsexual, I would say I would not pledge such a person, however, I also think I'm open to having my mind changed on this point. (Frankly, I would need a better understanding of transsexual psychology.)

Many (most) fraternity houses don't have 90 people in them.

And what part of "living as a man" do you not get? He's not going to be running around in a bra and pantyhose with a purse. Are you saying that men are such animals that they would rape someone whose anatomy fits? If so, housemothers need to all get pepper spray.

I could leave an open bucket of sulfuric acid inside the front door to my fraternity and trust the good judgment of everyone in my house not to playfully splash it on each other. But there's no reason to do that. The unrealized danger of placing an open bucket of sulfuric acid inside the front door - as tiny as it may be - outweighs the benefit to the fraternity of having sulfuric acid laying about.

The eff is a housemother?

Let us pause to consider the plight of these poor men who simply cannot control themselves to not rape and splash sulfuric acid upon one another.

I've never used the word "rape." The previous poster ran in here, waving her arms in the air and screaming the R-word. So you'll have to address that question to her.

My concern is for the violation of the other pledges. For instance, in my house we had group showers. Would it be right for me to assume that all of this individual's pledge brothers would be comfortable showering with an anatomical woman?

Houses are shuttered all the time for hazing on charges of compelling pledges to be nude in front of members of the opposite sex. If my pledges showed up on move-in day and were informed that, in order to perform basic human hygiene functions, they would be required to expose themselves to an anatomical woman, what risk would be assuming? Fraternities operate on a razor-edge in the current environment. There doesn't need to be an intention of ill-will, anything that offers even a whiff of suspicion can be used to close a chapter. Any situation that, after being retold 12 times, can evolve into something iffy-sounding when it's splashed across the front page of the campus newspaper should not be a situation in which one should voluntarily choose to place their house. You can howl at the sky and bemoan that all you want, I suppose, but you sound pretty wild-eyed and reckless when you do.

Just because there are group showers, doesn't mean a group has to shower in them. (Does ANY fraternity have this nowadays? Were there no curtains or what?)

And do you seriously not know what a housemother is?

You've never heard of a gang shower? Have you ever been to a gym?

And if 80% of the house has a 9:30 class, yeah, groups do shower together unless you don't want anyone sitting next to you in your POLI SCI 201 lecture.

I've seen housemothers in composite photos from the 30s and 40s. I didn't know they still existed anywhere, or what they did when they did exist. And I don't know a single other fraternity or sorority on my campus which had one; we had close to 40 residential GLOs with housed memberships ranging from ~20 to 100 (the latter in the case of SAEs and TEKEs).

Maybe they still have them at like Christian or religious GLOs or something?

They still have housemothers. At colleges and GLOs that are definitely not restricted to "religious" or "Christian" members.

http://family.auburn.edu/profiles/bl...frat-house-mom
http://www.alligator.org/news/local/...9bb2963f4.html

I'm pretty sure anyone who has an issue with group showering (be it genitalia or just plain shyness) finds a way around taking a shower when everyone else is. Also, why do you automatically assume that everyone would live in the house? Many people don't, for various reasons.

And yes I've been to gyms, and I know this will shock you, but I haven't been in the men's locker room.

Sorry, but I haven't gotten past trans men being the same as an open bucket of sulfuric acid in a fraternity house.

It's a statement of fact, not an assumption. The opinion I expressed was specific to my house. And, at my house, everyone lived-in as a pledge, that was a requirement. I don't know of any other fraternity on my campus where the house was just a dorm with letters that people could opt-in or out-of at will. I think co-residency is a vital component of the bonding experience.

Do you mind if I ask what kind of school you attended? Things like housemothers and non-residential GLOs is not something to which I can relate; I suspect our different experiences may be the source of our different worldviews.

Thanks for this, I didn't know those existed in this day-in-age. That said, I am certainly glad we did not have a housemother; a fraternity is a wonderful experience in self-government that is important in molding adults. A babysitter for 20 and 21 year-old men seems incredibly juvenilizing.

I also would not want a house mother who is wandering around the halls calling our fraternity a "frat house" like "Ms. Mary." I also find this - Ms. Mary tries to direct these young men in the traditions and foundation of Kappa Alpha in order for the betterment of the fraternity and the betterment of these young men. - interesting. It sounds like KA's traditions and principles are like laundry, anyone can teach you how to do it. And that's fine, I don't begrudge them that. However, I think some ante-bellum fraternities have more enduring and complex foundations for which a non-frater may not be the best guide.

It's a positive statement of fact, not an assumption. As indicated, the opinion I expressed was specific to my house. And, at my house, everyone lived-in as a pledge, that was a concrete requirement, and one I would be anathema to see changed as co-residency is an important component of the bonding experience. (I don't know of any other fraternities on my campus where the house was just a dorm with letters that people could opt-in or out-of at will, though I never took a survey.)

As to the various what-if scenarios you're throwing out - sure, if we had showers with titanium privacy cones that robotically descended over us, and an alarm that went off when someone got undressed that said "WARNING! A PENIS IS EXPOSED!", and our pledges slept in their junior high bunkbeds back at mom and dads, and a random old lady was camped out in the basement of the chapter house, etc., then sure, no problem, bring in the pre-op transsexuals. (Though, honestly, this sounds like a slightly neurotic/very low tier fraternity I probably would not have pledged in the first place - not because of the pre-op transsexuals, but because of everything else.)

Thanks for this, I didn't know those existed in this day-in-age. That said, I am certainly glad we did not have a housemother; a fraternity is a wonderful experience in self-government that is important in molding adults. A babysitter for 20 and 21 year-old men seems incredibly juvenilizing.

I also would not want a house mother who is schlepping up and down the halls in her bathrobe calling our fraternity a "frat house" like "Ms. Mary." I also find this - Ms. Mary tries to direct these young men in the traditions and foundation of Kappa Alpha in order for the betterment of the fraternity and the betterment of these young men. - interesting. It sounds like KA2's traditions and principles are like laundry, anyone can teach you how to do it. And that's fine, it's not a criticism of KA2. However, others should respect the idea that some ante-bellum fraternities have more enduring and complex foundations for which a non-frater may not be the best guide.

If you are new here, you might not want to start off by criticizing Kappa Alpha or any other group. Be polite.

You might also want to avoid parading your bigotry and discriminatory intent towards people who are trans. It appears that you started a thread merely for the purpose of saying "Oooooh, icky!" Grow up.

This is an outstanding Hofstra Law Review article on this subject. It put to bed a lot of concerns I had, i.e., I had always just assumed that based on what little I know about Title IX in this area that the inclusion of someone who was not "a man" would jeopardize our single-gender status. The Article points out that state and federal laws, as per usual, lag behind reality in that none of them define what a man or a woman is. Further, they apply to academic institutions and not GLOs--at least not directly.

http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra....00&context=hlr

I was surprised to learn that all that is holding us back is the definitions section of our own bylaws.

This link is to a Fraternal Law newsletter from last month which takes a more bullet-point approach to the issue. It even gives some good sample model rules for fraternal policy makers.

http://fraternallaw.com/wp-content/u...ember-2014.pdf


As for fraternities, trans inclusion is going to be a process and different from fraternity to fraternity because we all have very different manners in which we operate. I can only speak to Sigma Nu because that's the only fraternity I'm qualified to speak about. I know that we have implemented a national policy of non-discrimination due to orientation, but I don't believe we've taken a serious look at trans discrimination. Our Law states in black and white that a member must be a "man," and predictably, "man" is not defined in the definitions section. For that reason, I'd want to get a blessing from HQ before making any decision there.

I posted here probably around 10 years ago (I've been here that long!) that I thought that the inclusion of gay members in fraternities and specifically my very conservative chapter at a very conservative school would probably never happen due to the stigma which would arise from it. Now, in 2014, I know that even with regard to some of my own brothers, who remain dear friends, I was sorely mistaken. I regret that they had to repress that part of themselves to be included. And am glad to know my chapter has evolved since then, I have evolved since then. Now my chapter includes several active members who identify as gay or bi. It is a non-issue.

Having learned from my own past mistakes, I would certainly support a change in national policy to implement a version of the model language suggested in my second link into our local and national bylaws. If someone identifies as male and happens to not have all the male parts, all things being equal, should he meet our other membership selection criteria, I don't see that being transgender should in itself be a legal issue or any sort of reason by itself to not consider someone for membership.

I understand that there may have to be some accommodations made in larger housed chapters, but I can't think of anything which would be an impossibility.

ETA: If anything, I've learned that there are fewer regrets when you are on the right side of history.

Sigh of relief. What a piece of (poorly constructed) work.

Although,honestly, it was worth it reading the stupidity to see what 33 and amIblue came up with; I had a few much needed laughs.

http://i42.tinypic.com/28lyix2.gif

:)

Back to the legal question. In this country, there are legally only two sexes and people go to judges to get the gender changed at some point in psychological/surgical/medicinal procedure.

What I guess I don't understand is why Social Fraternities and Sororities that want to keep their Title IX exemption don't have the following rule: Membership can only be granted and may only be continued while the person is of the legal gender which the members of the group have.

(flipped coin, male example) Wouldn't a Fraternity place its Title IX exemption at risk by allowing a brother to legally become a woman without removing their membership in the Fraternity?

You have to live as a woman for a period of time before having the final surgery. That would include not claiming/surrendering membership inan organization that is male only.

In my post above, the first link is a law review article which painstakingly and clearly answers the Title IX question. The fact is that the law has really not addressed it at this point.

That may be some weird state law, but I don't believe that's the case. The law review article above talks about a transitioned alumna (former alumnus) of a fraternity who is active, donates and is bequeathing her seven-figure estate to the fraternity. It is very clear that she is still a member in good standing.

I think what you're saying is a wives' tale, but maybe you have something to support it?

Anybody else take issue with the fairly dehumanizing title of this thread?

If it read as "Would you pledge a gay?" would folks be more irritated?

What is the proper terminology transgender? I'm not asking this to be snarky. I was told by someone in the LGBT community that this is the more appropriate term. If its not, then it would be helpful to know.

In my opinion, I think the OP wanted to use the post as an opportunity to spew his vitriol. Their overall tone in the post was disturbing.

We've had posts like that on GC as well.

I would, but mostly because I've never seen gay used as a stand-alone noun.

No, not a wives tale, assumption on my part...if you're tasked by your doctor to live as a woman, why would you stay active in an organization that the rest of the world views as one for men only? You can donate to a group without being a member. It says that she doesn't support her brothers in person and that her estate is in her pre-transition name. I would hardly call that being in
good standing as who she is today.

We had a similar situation occur during Rush a few years ago. I am not sure if a bid was extended.

There are only two possible statuses... in good standing and not in good standing. I do wish the article elaborated on what it means to be in "close contact" with her HQ though.