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.

  • stopthatgirl7@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

  • Ertebolle@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      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

      • DessertStorms@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        I disagree strongly with the sorority’s decision

        to not exclude the trans woman?

        can/should we compel individuals to hang out with people they don’t want to hang out with?

        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.

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          11 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.

          • LoopingRiver@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

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

            • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 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