A sorority at the University of Wyoming will be forced to accommodate a 6’2 trans-identified male after the federal District Court rejected a suit brought by six of the female members.
“Regardless of what your political views are, our Kappa values are acceptance and kindness so if that is something that you disagree with, that’s not in line with Kappa values,” - Once again kindness is weaponised against women and their concerns about safety and dignity dismissed as political views or cruelty, while ignoring the torment and trauma of women who do not feel safe or that have previously been sexually assaulted. Where is the kindness indeed. A decent man wouldn't be forcing himself into women's spaces. Once again some women are our own worst enemy in supporting him. I do wonder if the supporters of Artemis would change their tune if they were the ones that actually had to live with him? As for the judge - the bylaws do not define a woman, not because it is open to interpretation but because there should be NO interpretation. Jackass.
BlackieKat, excellent comment. Thank you! I was thinking similar. The items you quoted were the ones that infuriated me, too.
Thank you for expressing this better than I would have.
Yes, this "kindness" weaponizing! The judge and sorority are entirely looking at this from the man's point of view, not the women's. He feels excluded. But it is the women who HE is INTRUDING upon. He is trampling their rights to privacy, safety, and freedom of association.
The comment quoted in the article, about imagining into the future his potential danger for the women: that is outrageous. That's the entire point of female-only spaces: male violence and male sexual violence are so common that the most effective way to protect women is to have female-only spaces available, particularly for when women are in states of undress, isolation, or asleep or otherwise vulnerable to assault.
The cult just loves to pretend such assaults don't exist in massive numbers. Per the FBI annual crime statistic tables, each year, men commit roughly 80% of violent crimes, women 20%. And men commit 95% of sex-based crimes, women 5%; except for prostitution/being prostituted. Female-only spaces are the simplest and most effective way to protect females from males.
I hope that sorority just tanked its membership.
We should each write to our alma maters' school newspapers, exposing this sorority as endangering its female members by letting in men, and warning women to not join that sorority. Instead, they should look for or create their own sororities that expressly are women-only, and that define a woman as an adult human female AND define "female" as being of the sex that produces ova. Not all females produce ova, but all are of the sex that does (in the case of women with disorders of sexual development (DSDs).
Gender-critical women need to be shouting from the roof tops: "Women aren't 'excluding.' Men who say they're women are INTRUDING - on women."
And enough with any woman calling herself a 'terf,' with that destructive word "exclusionary" in it, as everyone knows. I couod care less if Kara Dansky tries to redefine the acronym.
Women who call themselves the t-slur are HANDING these men wins in court, and are screwing over every woman's rights. Women like Kara Dansky of WDI USA, who now has flip flopped and uses that hateful, politically ruinous term.
Judges are literally saying that "exclusionary" means "discriminatory." Again and again I read judges saying or writing this in their decisions. It's in the press on a regular basis. Calling us "exclusionary" is causing us to LOSE.
Any woman who calls herself the t-slur is anti-feminist. All it's doing is helping these men, and hurting women and girls: destroying our rights.
**
Back to my original message: thanks for your comment, BlackieKat.
Quite right! Love your passion. Everyone should be incensed by this. No-one should be accepting the casual way women's concerns around safety and dignity are dismissed as unkind or just politics.
It is weaponised by anyone who calls themselves an "ally" in instances like this. "Be nice" has long been a mechanism to control the behaviour of women regardless of the sex of the one doing the controlling.
no one but a predatory man would do this. any decent guy would respect womens privacy. this guy is a sleazy voyeur and has no place in that house. poor girls.
I see Josh has arrived to troll my page with comments blaming women on a story about a perverted and predatory man. You're right about one thing, women are not a united hivemind in opposition to these men, who, on the other hand, have the support of the highest echelons of society, including the White House. If you want so badly to play the blame game, you might do well to take a look at history. If you want to hate on women, do it on your own page.
I have more respect for you than you have for me. You do great work.
But you're typically unfair, dismissive, and nasty. My point is reasonable and proportionate. Your inability to see it as anything other than "trolling," and your reflexive accusation of "hating on women" is cheap and beneath you.
Women have agency. You take actions in the world. You are not innocent victims in every circumstance, and your blindness to the dynamics driving this in the sorority are frankly stunning.
You'll notice I didn't make any character attacks on you, yet that's the first place you took this. You're the first person to call me "unfair" and "nasty"; perhaps you should reflect on why it is that you have issues with women.
This is not the first time Josh has come to my Substack to comment on a situation involving a man, only to point fingers at women. The only instances where he had commented were to do exactly that. That is called trolling.
The only option is for all of the women to disassociate themselves from that sorority, if possible. Only predators fight for access and get angry at the prospect of that access being denied. Words are cheap, always watch someone’s actions and reactions to being told “no.”
No, they can appeal. The court at some point is going to have to admit that sex exists as an objective defining category, and that a person cannot reasonably apply their own definition of sex to it. There is already plenty of precedent for that.
They need to! They need to make as much noise as possible and not allow a woman’s tendency to be polite and not make a fuss be weaponised against their best interests.
Excellent reporting, Genevieve! Thank you. This is infuriating. I hope that sorority loses lots of members. We should write to our former campus newspapers, exposing this sorority as being unsafe for women, and urging women to create or join female-only sororties. And to point out that the sorority needs to include the definitions of woman, "adult human female," and female, "of the sex that produces ova."
The judge is a coward. The law by necessity is based in objective reality. If everyone is allowed to apply their own definitions to things, then contracts become meaningless.
Langford is a man by any reasonable objective definition. The sorority members reasonably expected the sorority not to admit men. That should be the end of it.
The judge's hands were tied. There was nothing that he could have done about the situation. KKG had made it very clear that they embraced gender identity ideology and that they would allow men who thought that they were women into their sorority chapters. Langford was legitimately voted in. When the sorority sisters complained about him and got a "Too bad! Be Kind!" response from KKG, they should have given up on getting KKG to remove him and lodged criminal complaints against him instead. WY does not have "anti discriminatory" laws protecting trans nut cases. And indecent exposure or other similar laws are probably still on their books. A different approach may have yielded better results.
Sure he could have done something. He could have noted the simple truth that "gender" is not objectively definable under law since it depends entirely on an individual's feelings, and so he is obliged to go by the traditional meaning of sex under law. He could have made the sensible determination that KKG violated their own by-laws which they are required under law to follow.
“Regardless of what your political views are, our Kappa values are acceptance and kindness so if that is something that you disagree with, that’s not in line with Kappa values,” - Once again kindness is weaponised against women and their concerns about safety and dignity dismissed as political views or cruelty, while ignoring the torment and trauma of women who do not feel safe or that have previously been sexually assaulted. Where is the kindness indeed. A decent man wouldn't be forcing himself into women's spaces. Once again some women are our own worst enemy in supporting him. I do wonder if the supporters of Artemis would change their tune if they were the ones that actually had to live with him? As for the judge - the bylaws do not define a woman, not because it is open to interpretation but because there should be NO interpretation. Jackass.
BlackieKat, excellent comment. Thank you! I was thinking similar. The items you quoted were the ones that infuriated me, too.
Thank you for expressing this better than I would have.
Yes, this "kindness" weaponizing! The judge and sorority are entirely looking at this from the man's point of view, not the women's. He feels excluded. But it is the women who HE is INTRUDING upon. He is trampling their rights to privacy, safety, and freedom of association.
The comment quoted in the article, about imagining into the future his potential danger for the women: that is outrageous. That's the entire point of female-only spaces: male violence and male sexual violence are so common that the most effective way to protect women is to have female-only spaces available, particularly for when women are in states of undress, isolation, or asleep or otherwise vulnerable to assault.
The cult just loves to pretend such assaults don't exist in massive numbers. Per the FBI annual crime statistic tables, each year, men commit roughly 80% of violent crimes, women 20%. And men commit 95% of sex-based crimes, women 5%; except for prostitution/being prostituted. Female-only spaces are the simplest and most effective way to protect females from males.
I hope that sorority just tanked its membership.
We should each write to our alma maters' school newspapers, exposing this sorority as endangering its female members by letting in men, and warning women to not join that sorority. Instead, they should look for or create their own sororities that expressly are women-only, and that define a woman as an adult human female AND define "female" as being of the sex that produces ova. Not all females produce ova, but all are of the sex that does (in the case of women with disorders of sexual development (DSDs).
Gender-critical women need to be shouting from the roof tops: "Women aren't 'excluding.' Men who say they're women are INTRUDING - on women."
And enough with any woman calling herself a 'terf,' with that destructive word "exclusionary" in it, as everyone knows. I couod care less if Kara Dansky tries to redefine the acronym.
Women who call themselves the t-slur are HANDING these men wins in court, and are screwing over every woman's rights. Women like Kara Dansky of WDI USA, who now has flip flopped and uses that hateful, politically ruinous term.
Judges are literally saying that "exclusionary" means "discriminatory." Again and again I read judges saying or writing this in their decisions. It's in the press on a regular basis. Calling us "exclusionary" is causing us to LOSE.
Any woman who calls herself the t-slur is anti-feminist. All it's doing is helping these men, and hurting women and girls: destroying our rights.
**
Back to my original message: thanks for your comment, BlackieKat.
Quite right! Love your passion. Everyone should be incensed by this. No-one should be accepting the casual way women's concerns around safety and dignity are dismissed as unkind or just politics.
I agree with you. Thank you for saying this.
Weaponized by women against other women.
It is weaponised by anyone who calls themselves an "ally" in instances like this. "Be nice" has long been a mechanism to control the behaviour of women regardless of the sex of the one doing the controlling.
Sadly, there are always women willing to support bad actors. And in this particular arena, for very good reason, many more too frightened to speak up.
no one but a predatory man would do this. any decent guy would respect womens privacy. this guy is a sleazy voyeur and has no place in that house. poor girls.
And all the women supporting him against their sorority sisters. Conveniently left out.
I see Josh has arrived to troll my page with comments blaming women on a story about a perverted and predatory man. You're right about one thing, women are not a united hivemind in opposition to these men, who, on the other hand, have the support of the highest echelons of society, including the White House. If you want so badly to play the blame game, you might do well to take a look at history. If you want to hate on women, do it on your own page.
I have more respect for you than you have for me. You do great work.
But you're typically unfair, dismissive, and nasty. My point is reasonable and proportionate. Your inability to see it as anything other than "trolling," and your reflexive accusation of "hating on women" is cheap and beneath you.
Women have agency. You take actions in the world. You are not innocent victims in every circumstance, and your blindness to the dynamics driving this in the sorority are frankly stunning.
Don't worry, I won't darken your door again.
You'll notice I didn't make any character attacks on you, yet that's the first place you took this. You're the first person to call me "unfair" and "nasty"; perhaps you should reflect on why it is that you have issues with women.
"I see Josh has arrived to troll my page"
"If you want to hate on women"
...
"You'll notice I didn't make any character attacks on you"
Make it make sense.
This is not the first time Josh has come to my Substack to comment on a situation involving a man, only to point fingers at women. The only instances where he had commented were to do exactly that. That is called trolling.
The only option is for all of the women to disassociate themselves from that sorority, if possible. Only predators fight for access and get angry at the prospect of that access being denied. Words are cheap, always watch someone’s actions and reactions to being told “no.”
No, they can appeal. The court at some point is going to have to admit that sex exists as an objective defining category, and that a person cannot reasonably apply their own definition of sex to it. There is already plenty of precedent for that.
They need to! They need to make as much noise as possible and not allow a woman’s tendency to be polite and not make a fuss be weaponised against their best interests.
Excellent reporting, Genevieve! Thank you. This is infuriating. I hope that sorority loses lots of members. We should write to our former campus newspapers, exposing this sorority as being unsafe for women, and urging women to create or join female-only sororties. And to point out that the sorority needs to include the definitions of woman, "adult human female," and female, "of the sex that produces ova."
The judge is a coward. The law by necessity is based in objective reality. If everyone is allowed to apply their own definitions to things, then contracts become meaningless.
Langford is a man by any reasonable objective definition. The sorority members reasonably expected the sorority not to admit men. That should be the end of it.
Yes. All he had to do was look up what woman means in the dictionary, adult human female, and what female means, "of the sex that produces ova."
Yes. What’s next? Will this “private, voluntary association” be allowed to define the word “house““expansively” and put its members in tents?
Lol. Indeed.
The judge's hands were tied. There was nothing that he could have done about the situation. KKG had made it very clear that they embraced gender identity ideology and that they would allow men who thought that they were women into their sorority chapters. Langford was legitimately voted in. When the sorority sisters complained about him and got a "Too bad! Be Kind!" response from KKG, they should have given up on getting KKG to remove him and lodged criminal complaints against him instead. WY does not have "anti discriminatory" laws protecting trans nut cases. And indecent exposure or other similar laws are probably still on their books. A different approach may have yielded better results.
Sure he could have done something. He could have noted the simple truth that "gender" is not objectively definable under law since it depends entirely on an individual's feelings, and so he is obliged to go by the traditional meaning of sex under law. He could have made the sensible determination that KKG violated their own by-laws which they are required under law to follow.
Infuriating. If I were a KKG, under this tyranny, I’d get the hell out.
Every member of that sorority should just leave in protest
Awful situation, but you can't blame the judge for it. See Nate the Lawyer's very fair coverage of the case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy1VZAzbTyA
The blame lies with the sorority, both those who wrote the bylaws, and the members who voted this dude in, not the judge.
Great article.
Here’s a take from someone too who used to be closely affiliated with Greek life on the UWYO campus.
https://121jigawatts.substack.com/p/how-you-speed-run-your-way-to-social
"Avoid attributing to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity, moral cowardice and incompetence"
"Also, avoid saying dumb shit to strangers you know nothing about."