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.
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
370 points (97.0% liked)
politics
19144 readers
3647 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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 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
It became the de jure culture war issue. People who didn't care before, do now -- because now it's a team sport.
load more comments
(65 replies)
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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?
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
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
load more comments
(1 replies)
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!
view more: next ›