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.
Threaded Mode
