366

Judge dismisses lawsuit by sorority sisters who sought to block a transgender woman from joining (apnews.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

100 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A judge has dismissed a lawsuit contesting a transgender woman’s admission into a sorority at the University of Wyoming, ruling that he could not override how the private, voluntary organization defined a woman and order that she not belong.

In the lawsuit, six members of the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority chapter challenged Artemis Langford’s admission by casting doubt on whether sorority rules allowed a transgender woman. Wyoming U.S. District Court Judge Alan Johnson, in his ruling, found that sorority bylaws don’t define who’s a woman.

The case at Wyoming’s only four-year public university drew widespread attention as transgender people fight for more acceptance in schools, athletics, workplaces and elsewhere, while others push back.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Agree on principle, but you simply can't make private organizations associate with someone they don't want to.

Sure, I bet some of the members were fine with her joining, but they joined an organization with a decision making hierarchy, and have to abide by that leadership's vote/decision. If they don't like the decision they should leave, and join a more open group. (or work to remove the leadership and bring about the changes they want).

In this case it sounds like the rules didn't bar her from joining so I don't get the case at all.

Trans women are women, don't come at me like I'm a bigot.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

You're missing a key fact here: the sorority admitted her. This suit was by individual members trying to force the sorority to reverse their decision. This decision didn't establish new rights for trans people or affirm their existing rights, it affirmed the right of an organization to establish membership criteria that can't be overridden even by members of that organization.

How this would go wrt gender/sex being federally protected classes is an interesting question, but hasn't been examined by this case. All this did was establish that these 6 hateful shitheads can't force the rest of the group to be hateful shitheads. Or, more accurately, it failed to establish that they can.

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee -3 points 10 months ago

You didn't read my comment till the end

[-] LoopingRiver@lemm.ee -2 points 10 months ago

In all of these situations, replace trans woman with, say, black woman. Now how does it sound?

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

Pretty shitty! What, are you trying to use a gotcha?

You can't make private groups accept someone. It sucks, and results in some very distasteful scenarios.

Employment or public groups? Very different.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

I think black women should be allowed in sororities even if individual members object. This is in keeping with the law that allows private organizations to associate freely under most circumstances but prevents discrimination based on federally protected classes.

Idk, sounds pretty okay to me

[-] LoopingRiver@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago

That was my point exactly. Can’t discriminate against protected classes.

[-] ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

So you made the same point they did and added nothing.

[-] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

I mean, I'm pretty sure the Ku Klux Klan doesn't allow black women. They have the right to do that.

this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023

366 points (96.9% liked)

politics

18073 readers

4224 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News