Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum
Well, I'm pretty sure they can't join Southron's, but once members, they might not be expelled I believe was his point. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure his possible interpretation is that different that the average person's. I don't know that we accept the idea that post-op transsexuals are simply the new assigned gender. And I don't know if that's what the non-discrimination clauses demand.
Within the context of our organizations, I agree that issues of gender are always going to be strange because we can legally discriminate in a way that other institutions can't since we're by definition single sex.
|
I was away from the conversation, so thank you, AlphaGamUGAAlum. Yes, I appreciate your sincere interpretation even though the preceding commentator could not or would not get my meaning.
Modern science and traditional society both recognise sexual identity is usually established at birth (the exception of deformities notwithstanding.) Only the advent of revisionist ideologies and technical capabilities has allowed the "appearance" of surgical sex change to be achieved.
If a fraternity wishes to believe a man can make himself into a woman, then it can act accordingly. If on the other hand, the fraternity believes that a man cannot make himself into a woman, then they can only establish that "action" would follow if self-mutilation were to occur.
(BTW, throughout the 19th century the Freemasons would not initiate maimed or deformed individuals lacking arms or legs. Those requirements were only for initiation and later disfigurements did not eject the man from the fraternity. This is not exactly related to our discussion but it is well to note that some type of precedent exists in the fraternal community.)
As noted in the discussion, a distinction in our society seems increasingly lost among even college-educated communities - that distinction between what is legally established and that which is morally/ethically true. Most fraternities are established to bond their members according to shared values. When the state challenges those values, the fraternity can either resist the challenge openly or conform to the new regime. If a fraternity must obey laws whose morality it opposes, a free society will not challenge that fraternity's rejection of the principle asserted by an unjust or immoral law. Thus I could envision a fraternity being forced to accept laws as good citizens while teaching the immorality of the law to its members.
I do not believe my fraternity would knowingly initiate a woman - especially as one of our core value is the elevation and respect for the feminine. (Unlike other fraternities that have allowed co-ed membership in certain chapters, my order would lose its ethos if brothers were to treat "sisters" without deference and the other chivalric values. We could not possibly treat each other without distinctions because we hold the difference between the sexes as real. This is simply the philosophy we choose to champion. We do not assume all fraternities must order themselves with such a focus. However, that is a defining quality of our identity - a "landmark" if you will...)
Were an active or alumnus to undergo surgery to change sexual identity, I would hope the chapter or national organization would not participate in the charade unless compelled by law.
My thoughts clarified anyway... I hope...