Would you pledge a transsexual?

[Sen's Revenge]

Originally Posted by 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.

[AZTheta]

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.

[naraht]

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?

[33girl]

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.

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?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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?

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I would hardly call that being in
good standing as who she is today.

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.

[Kevin]

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.

[squirrely girl]

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?

[andthen]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

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.

[Sen's Revenge]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

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?

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

[naraht]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

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?

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

[PKT4LIFE]

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