Sex Change and Membership

[SnuKnight172]

Here is a twist to the situation:

What if a man/woman at the age of 18 decides to have the surgery and become the opposite gender? Can we descriminate at this point if by all legal means Michelle became Michael or if Christopher became Christina? Would your fraternity or sorority let this person rush as their new gender?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by SnuKnight172

Here is a twist to the situation:

What if a man/woman at the age of 18 decides to have the surgery and become the opposite gender? Can we descriminate at this point if by all legal means Michelle became Michael or if Christopher became Christina? Would your fraternity or sorority let this person rush as their new gender?

Absolutely. We can discriminate for any damn reason we want to. It's just that certain reasons for discrimination can't be actually spoken. If your state has a law (and if you're in Cali, it probably does) forbidding discrimination against transsexuals and y'all found this to be unacceptable, simply cut 'em. No explanation need be given.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Absolutely. We can discriminate for any damn reason we want to. It's just that certain reasons for discrimination can't be actually spoken. If your state has a law (and if you're in Cali, it probably does) forbidding discrimination against transsexuals and y'all found this to be unacceptable, simply cut 'em. No explanation need be given.

Maybe you're more guided by Thoreau in terms of your moral obligation to resist laws you think are unjust, but this position seems hypocritical: choose to break the law but just make it impossible to be caught.

I agree that if you never even discuss why someone was disqualified for something, no one will be able to prove that you discriminated, but in this example, it would be clear that you did. And unless you are someone who generally believes that we have no obligation to follow laws we don't agree with, it's odd that you, Mr. Law Guy, would float this idea out there.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

I agree that if you never even discuss why someone was disqualified for something, no one will be able to prove that you discriminated, but in this example, it would be clear that you did. And unless you are someone who generally believes that we have no obligation to follow laws we don't agree with, it's odd that you, Mr. Law Guy, would float this idea out there.

Truth be told, the way membership selection generally works does not lend itself to disclosure of reasons. Such things are never discussed outside of that room and the ballots are secret.

At any rate, even assuming that you could prove the discrimination occurred, it still might be legal since gender is one of the central aspects of men's and women's fraternities. Transgendered individuals may not meet that organization's requirements along those lines and therefore, the discrimination would be permissible.

The legislative intent is not to force college fraternities and sororities to allow members they don't want. The legislative intent is generally more along the lines of public services and accommodations, workforce issues, etc. At any rate, you never even get to that question because the person suing to get initiated has a burden of proof which would be impossible to prove. How does one prove the results of an unrecorded secret ballot and the reasons behind any one of the ballots cast against association (any of which would have sufficed to exclude that person)?

Impossible. Such a law would be completely unenforceable in the context of our organizations.

Transgendered folks can start their own organizations or they can join Southron's.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Truth be told, the way membership selection generally works does not lend itself to disclosure of reasons. Such things are never discussed outside of that room and the ballots are secret.

At any rate, even assuming that you could prove the discrimination occurred, it still might be legal since gender is one of the central aspects of men's and women's fraternities. Transgendered individuals may not meet that organization's requirements along those lines and therefore, the discrimination would be permissible.

The legislative intent is not to force college fraternities and sororities to allow members they don't want. The legislative intent is generally more along the lines of public services and accommodations, workforce issues, etc. At any rate, you never even get to that question because the person suing to get initiated has a burden of proof which would be impossible to prove. How does one prove the results of an unrecorded secret ballot and the reasons behind any one of the ballots cast against association (any of which would have sufficed to exclude that person)?

Impossible. Such a law would be completely unenforceable in the context of our organizations.

Transgendered folks can start their own organizations or they can join Southron's.

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.

[Southron]

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...

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Southron

Unlike other fraternities that have allowed co-ed membership in certain chapters

Other than Alpha Delta Phi (which, to be technical, is an all male fraternity and a co-ed society - 2 different entities), examples please? (Chapters that leave the national fraternity and become local fraternities, like some of the groups at Dartmouth, don't count.)

[ErinIsBadNews]

If it were me, I would not be actively involved as an alumni. I think that it would be too much like pretending that I was something I'm not. I can only imagine that after a lifetime of feeling like you don't belong, being involved in a sorority would not be the best experience. idk. lol.