Judge dismisses lawsuit by sorority sisters who sought to block a transgender woman from joining
apnews.com
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.
This is all just absolutely wild to me because I went to an all-women’s college and we had no issues accepting trans women (there was a trans woman there when I was a student and it was honestly no big thing for anyone), and that was quite a while ago (I’m so old lol). But NOW it’s a damn issue? I feel like we’ve regressed so much and it’s painful.
Conservatives won on abortion and have found the next entry in the "then they came for" list.
The bigots got ballsy once they got unified, if we want things back the way they were we need to beat bigots back into the shadows of society and encourage behaviours that makes them run. No tolerance for intolerance.
It became the de jure culture war issue. People who didn't care before, do now -- because now it's a team sport.
It feels that way because we have, thanks to the "Christian" right directing the full force of their propaganda machine at demonizing trans people.
It’s an issue ONLY because it’s a useful angle for Tempe culture wars. Look how they have turned some gays against each other with this anti trans bullshit. It’s only an issue now because gays are too popular and so trans is a nice little niche group that can be persecuted without as much PR damage
Were they living in your house?
I've lived with a transgender woman for ten years now. Still alive, still happy, still single.
Not in my dorm, no. But she was living on campus in a dorm and no one seemed to give the smallest of fucks at the time. I wouldn’t have cared in the slightest had she been living in my dorm.
Oh and.
Anassa kata kalo kale,
Ia, ia, ia, Nike!
Bryn Mawr, Bryn Mawr, Bryn Mawr
TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN.
Women with traumatic pasts can be afraid if they want. Just look at what happens in prisons when a transsexual mtf goes into female population and ends up having a bunch of sex or even raping other inmates. It's not like it's completely out of the realm of possibility.
Won't anyone think of the __________!....so that we have an excuse to continually strip you of rights and privileges. You won't be any safer than you were before this WAY overblown issue, but we've now made it more difficult for this one targeted minority group to coexist with OUR group, and you've lost the right to do X, Y, and Z. But hey, atleast you've saved the ____________ from having to go through my totally hyperbolic scenario.
And it is just effing W I L D how women are told they need to just suck it up it they’re nervous around men because of a past sexual assault (“Not all men! You can’t judge half the species by one bad guy!” Etc etc), but it’s completely OK for women to be nervous around trans women if they were sexually assaulted by a man. Weird how they insist trans women are men but you never hear that same “not all men! You can’t judge all men based on the actions of one bad guy!” thing when it’s that scenario, huh.
Louder for the people in the back!
"You can't let trans women, use the woman's washroom. They'll rape the women!"
Pretty sure a women going into a bathroom has never stopped a rapist before.
Oh, you’re one of those types, huh.
But please. Continue telling a woman who has a “traumatic past” what we can or can no be afraid of (thank you OH so much for your benevolent permission 🙄). I’m not in the slightest afraid of trans women, never have been, and oh, hey, trans women are more likely to be victims of sexual assault that perpetrators of it. But go off.
I'm not telling any woman anything. I'm merely pointing out that there's real people with real issues that are ignored when you just blanket call it ridiculous. You don't have to be in a group to be able to point out rationales.
Uh huh.
Look at you, completely blowing off the words of a woman in that group you’re supposedly defending. But then, I’m saying something you don’t want to hear and doesn’t fit the narrative you’ve constructed as your excuse to hate trans folks.
Stop using women as your excuse. You don’t care about us, not really. If you did, you’d be out there protesting with that same full-throatedness at male guards assaulting women in prisons and the 1-in-4 statistic. But you’re not. You’re raging at a marginalized group that is statistically more often the victim of assaults than the ones doing it. But you don’t care at all about that, do you.
The only person you’re fooling is yourself.
The one in four statistic is bullshit. All I'm doing is saying that they have the right to not like it. If they have reasons it doesn't matter what they are. It's their house where they live, where they sleep where they shower. They want to feel safe and they don't feel safe so they are making complaints and everyone in this thread is calling them bigots because they don't like it.
Yeah, you’re not worth any more of my time and you definitely don’t actually care about women. You have the mediocre day you deserve.
I'm worried women with traumatic pasts are afraid of Tb0n3 using the internet, so I think we should ban Tb0n3 from using the internet to make these unnamed women feel less afraid. In fact, we take away all of Tb0n3's access to any electronic devices while we figure this out. We have to do it to keep women safe.
I'm merely defending their right to use the argument. And there's a massive difference between somebody saying things on the Internet and somebody sharing a bathroom or sleeping in the next room.
Bullshit. You're using them as shields for your own bigotry against the trans people you hate.
I already said others might not feel safe if you were allowed to use electronics, yet here you are again, completely insisting on using this site despite the harm you may cause. We should probably get law enforcement involved at this point, just so these people I imagined might be afraid can be safe. They can forcibly take away your computer and phone while the rest of us figure this out. Sure, you think there is a massive difference, but that is just something someone dangerous like you would say to trick them. More proof that you need to remain banned from participation.
Defending transphobic arguments is a bad hobby. You should get a different one.
Because rapes don't happen in a completely cis prison?
I bet they happen even more than with trans inmates.
Don't drop your soap.
One thing more bad which means thing that less bad not exist.
Can you cite an example of this ever happening?
First result on Google.
https://nypost.com/2022/04/25/transgender-rikers-inmate-gets-7-years-for-raping-female-prisoner/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/26/trans-woman-isla-bryson-found-guilty-rape-not-be-held-in-womens-prison-sturgeon
Women in prison have a lot more to fear from guards than trans women prisoners. If you’re really so worried about sexual assault of women in prisons, that’s where your efforts should actually be focused.
Why add any more risks? Just because one thing is a high risk doesn't mean another thing can't also be a risk.
Look at you, completely ignoring the real dangers to women to focus on a minuscule one.
This is just your excuse to hate on trans folks. You don’t really give the first flying fuck about women. As a woman: leave us out of it. We don’t need your kind of “defense.”
Just because you don't like what other women believe doesn't mean they can't believe it.
I never thought I'd see a thread on Lemmy arguing that a group of young women should be forced to live with someone that they clearly don't want to.
Good for you for arguing with them, I don't have the energy this morning.
Your second example is false. Your first points to a systemic problem with Riker's as evidenced here: https://www.bronxda.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/pr/2021/39-2021%20rikers-island-violence-indictments.pdf
"Since Grand Juries re-convened in late February/March of 2021, the Rikers Island Prosecution Bureau has indicted 37 cases involving assaults on staff as well as assaults by detainees on detainees. The majority of the cases were brought to the bureau by Department of Correction’s Correction Intelligence Bureau as investigations. There are currently approximately 268 open investigations."
Looks like you found one example in amongst a whole bunch of other assaults which were not committed by trans people.
3 links. And if there's even one it can certainly make rape victims uncomfortable about sharing a living space with men, or "penis havers". Maybe they're in a sorority to stay away from dicks.
You asked for an example of it ever happening and I provided examples of it ever happening but you ignore them and claim one is false. Great goalpost moving there.
It’s so wild how you seem to think trans women are sexual deviants and that female rape victims cower in terror at the thought of a penis in their general vicinity.
I thought you people were all about safe spaces.
And clearly you people are all about inventing boogymen.
Aaand there it is. Fuck off troll.
You people...
Yes. Far left, terminally online.
I missed the first one, that's problematic as an example, did you read what you linked to? The Guardian one is false.
The Riker's one does seem to support your assertion but it's mixed in with a whole bunch of other assaults because it's Riker's.
I literally do not care enough to read the articles, but you're saying that one of them proved my point. You asked for one. Apparently I gave you one and again you're shifting the goal posts.
Oops, you said the quiet part out loud! LMAO
I don't care to put in the minimum effort over a stupid internet argument.
Which is another reason your opinion can be thrown promptly in the trash. Can't even be bothered to read the sources and yet want to appear as some authority on the subject. Laughable, disingenuous behavior.
When the fuck did I say I was an authority on anything? I'm just expressing possibilities that could make everyone in this thread who has their mind made up completely reconsider. Your opinion is not the only opinion and not necessarily the correct one either.
The best you could come up with was one perpetrated at one of the most lawless and violent prisons in the country, one that is not fit for purpose but hey, you think you won an argument so you enjoy that.
Anyone can be afraid of anything. That's their problem, talk it out with a therapist instead of discriminating against people that are just living their lives and aren't doing anything to hurt you.
Plenty of people are afraid of other races, but we recognize that as racism, and we don't try to pass laws in order to make racists comfortable.
What does being trans have to do with it? Rape is wrong whether a trans person or a cis person does it. It's just wrong, period.
How would that change anything?
Being out in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, but in your home you should have at least a modicum of privacy and security. If you fear what may come of a man or someone with a penis being in your home which is supposed to be for all women, you may lose that feeling of security.
The penis must have a mind of its own! Oh no! The horror!
USA instead of banning guns it bans penises
The government, lead by Biden, is trying to make porn illegal.
Are you a woman?
Are women dorm rooms (or in this case sorority halls) not allowed to have guests?
Like. I went to an all-women’s college. There were still men on campus and in some of the dorms. Hell, my senior year roommate’s boyfriend was over in our room constantly.
This dude seems to have “sorority” confused with “convent.”
Why is your question downvoted to oblivion? How DARE you ask where the person was living! Wow.
It was downvoted because none of us are so new to the internet that we don’t recognize a disingenuous question when we see it.
Worth noting that this was not a great leap - the judge didn't rule anything particularly interesting about trans rights, he simply said that freedom of association means you can't go to court to force a private organization to exclude someone.
Exactly. I disagree strongly with the sorority's decision, but can/should we compel individuals to hang out with people they don't want to hang out with?
If the group receives public money, it's a whole different situation
I'm assuming that the majority of members are fine with this, otherwise they'd simply change their bylaws to exclude trans women (and probably get away with doing so for the same legal reason). These 6 members were probably the losers of some internal battle who went to court to try to get their way anyway and failed.
Ah. This makes a whole lot more sense.
I saw this story this morning and could not for the life of me figure out what had happened.
None of it made sense until I saw your comment.
I don't think that'd work. Which is why most of the laws we're seeing from shithole states target medical care or other things instead of outright banning them.
Bostock v. Clayton County decided sexual orientation and gender identity fall within the Title VII of the Civil Rights act as under the protected class of "sex". This should decisively prevent anyone from outright discriminating against LGBT+ people, but we know how inventive conservatives get with oppressing others.
This explanation certainly makes me feel the least concerned for the new sister, so I hope so!
The sorority admitted the trans woman. This suit was filed by members of the sorority in an attempt to force the sorority to exclude her as a member. Are you sure you strongly disagree with the sorority's decision to admit a trans woman?
Ah I didn't RTFA
to not exclude the trans woman?
of course not, but if the people who don't want to "hang out" with others only don't want to because of wilfully ignorant hate (in other words - for no good reason, and of course this isn't about not wanting to hang out this is about excluding and attempting to erase an entire group of people), it shouldn't be the person who they hate for no good reason who is excluded, but them.
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.
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.
You didn't read my comment till the end
In all of these situations, replace trans woman with, say, black woman. Now how does it sound?
Idk, sounds pretty okay to me
That was my point exactly. Can’t discriminate against protected classes.
So you made the same point they did and added nothing.
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.
I mean, I'm pretty sure the Ku Klux Klan doesn't allow black women. They have the right to do that.
Well, the ones who don't want to hang out with others are free to leave.
Desegregation seems to have worked out better than segregation did for the affected minorities. Why wouldn't it be the same here?
Imagine having the time and resources to be such a shit in this way. The main thing is don't be a transphobe, but then a substantial secondary thing is get a life.
Good good. Hope they lose a very expensive defamation case next.
Good god why does everything have to revolve around that shit show. I thought we moved on given that all parties were proved to be idiots with their own issues in that case especially when the struck documents were exposed. No one came out smelling like a rose after that. Let’s Move on.
What?
Fucking nonsense. The sorority defined what woman meant when they voted to admit the member. There was no possible context this should've been filed. Those lawyers need to be sanctioned for even filling something like this.
Edit: judge didn't even dismiss it with prejudice https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wyd.63248/gov.uscourts.wyd.63248.31.0.pdf
This is the best summary I could come up with:
(AP) — 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.
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.
“With its inquiry beginning and ending there, the court will not define a ‘woman’ today,” Johnson wrote.
But while the lawsuit portrayed Langford as a “sexual predator,” claims about her behavior turned out to be a “nothing more than a drunken rumor,” Berkness said.
An attorney for the sorority sisters, Cassie Craven, said by email they disagreed with the ruling and the fundamental issue — the definition of a woman — remains undecided.
The original article contains 362 words, the summary contains 161 words. Saved 56%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Fucking bigots.