Would you pledge a transsexual?

[Terminus1909]

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?

[thetalady]

Originally Posted by Terminus1909

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......

[Terminus1909]

Originally Posted by thetalady

Not this again......

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

[thetalady]

Originally Posted by Terminus1909

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

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

[Sen's Revenge]

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.

[WCsweet<3]

Originally Posted by Sen's Revenge

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.

Agreed.

[naraht]

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

[pshsx1]

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.

[Terminus1909]

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.)

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Terminus1909

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.

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.

[Terminus1909]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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?

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.

Originally Posted by 33girl

If so, housemothers need to all get pepper spray.

The eff is a housemother?

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by Terminus1909

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.

[Terminus1909]

Originally Posted by amIblue?

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.

[amIblue?]

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

[Kevin]

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.