Transgender recruiting

CourtBelle · #1 05-17-2016, 08:20 AM

.

carnation · #2 05-17-2016, 08:27 AM

This has actually been discussed on many threads on Greekchat for years.

carnation · #3 05-17-2016, 08:30 AM

So do a search a read what others said.

Kevin · #4 05-17-2016, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CourtBelle

I just think discrimination in any form is wrong.

We discriminate quite a bit. As a rule, Greek organizations should be discriminatory. We discriminate against people with bad grades, against people with few high school activities. Upperclassmen certainly feel discriminated against in recruitment. And good luck getting a bid if you're overweight and in a competitive school. It sounds harsh, but them's the breaks. We are social clubs and part of the deal we have is mutual selection between the organization and potential members.

There are certain types of discrimination which are wrong or problematic, race, religion, national origin, etc. and there are types of discrimination which for organizations such as ours [felony convictions, for example] are advisable.

Kevin · #5 05-17-2016, 10:07 AM

And what is the difference between being selective and being discriminatory?

KDCat · #6 05-17-2016, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CourtBelle

When you go shopping, I'm sure you discriminate by brand, but once you find what you like, you are selective about what you buy, correct? All I'm saying is I'm not going to discriminate because of a label on a woman, I'm going to select her based on her quality. I will be selective on her as an overall person including her GPA, activities, the way she holds herself, if she represents the kind of woman my sorority embodies. I'm not going to exclude her because of her religion, color, sexual orientation, or any social stigma or label. If the state, university, and everyone else recognizes her as a woman, who am I to tell her she isn't?

This has been discussed to death on multiple threads. Many people agree with you. Some don't. As always membership selection is private, and membership requirements are private. If you want to make a change, you need to start with your own organization.

Transmen and transwomen are already in GLOs, though.

http://mediaocu.com/2016/04/20/greek...nder-students/

http://www.news-leader.com/story/new...omen/71902506/

http://totalsororitymove.com/pi-lamb...gender-sister/

http://jezebel.com/5659028/lgbt-soro...ek-stereotypes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...and_sororities

Tinkerbell1 · #7 05-17-2016, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CourtBelle

There is a difference but it is a thin line.

the terms are "just" discrimination (Harvard discriminates against c students, etc) and "unjust" discrimination (a store discriminates against Indians).... don't be afraid to use the term correctly.

With regard to transgendism, since when have thoughts generated reality? Allowing a male who identifies as a female to join a GLO for females is basically sponsoring the fantasy that men can become women, etc. and I would not be on board with that. That's certainly not to say gender dysphoria is not a real problem for some. What we do with it is the issue. The least invasive, more organic approach to this dysphoria would be to ease these individuals back into the reality of their bodies, not forward the medical and physical impossibility that men can become women. Treating people with kindness and dignity does not need to mean participation in a lie.

KDCat · #8 05-18-2016, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell1

the terms are "just" discrimination (Harvard discriminates against c students, etc) and "unjust" discrimination (a store discriminates against Indians).... don't be afraid to use the term correctly.

With regard to transgendism, since when have thoughts generated reality? Allowing a male who identifies as a female to join a GLO for females is basically sponsoring the fantasy that men can become women, etc. and I would not be on board with that. That's certainly not to say gender dysphoria is not a real problem for some. What we do with it is the issue. The least invasive, more organic approach to this dysphoria would be to ease these individuals back into the reality of their bodies, not forward the medical and physical impossibility that men can become women. Treating people with kindness and dignity does not need to mean participation in a lie.

There is no "we" in this issue. It is not a "we" decision.

The decision on how to deal with gender dysphoria is not anyone's decision but the person who has gender dysphoria. It's their body. They get to decide what to do with it. Your concern for what is easiest and "least invasive" and "more organic" is misplaced. It's not your business what someone else does with their body, or what treatment someone decides to pursue.

AZTheta · #9 05-18-2016, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDCat

There is no "we" in this issue. It is not a "we" decision.

The decision on how to deal with gender dysphoria is not anyone's decision but the person who has gender dysphoria. It's their body. They get to decide what to do with it. Your concern for what is easiest and "least invasive" and "more organic" is misplaced. It's not your business what someone else does with their body, or what treatment someone decides to pursue.

THIS.

Thank you.

Tinkerbell1 · #10 05-18-2016, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDCat

There is no "we" in this issue. It is not a "we" decision.

The decision on how to deal with gender dysphoria is not anyone's decision but the person who has gender dysphoria. It's their body. They get to decide what to do with it. Your concern for what is easiest and "least invasive" and "more organic" is misplaced. It's not your business what someone else does with their body, or what treatment someone decides to pursue.

What??! of course this is a "we" issue; it used to be only a personal issue but no longer: govt law makes this a "we" issue, a societal issue. GLOs allowing a biological male living as a female to rush makes this a "we" issue.

My "least invasive/organic" comment highlights the contradiction of embracing organic/least invasive methods and then rejecting that approach for gender dysphoria.

Tinkerbell1 · #11 05-18-2016, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDCat

There is no "we" in this issue. It is not a "we" decision.

The decision on how to deal with gender dysphoria is not anyone's decision but the person who has gender dysphoria. It's their body. They get to decide what to do with it. Your concern for what is easiest and "least invasive" and "more organic" is misplaced. It's not your business what someone else does with their body, or what treatment someone decides to pursue.

This is not about those with gender dysphoria using their free will to do what they want with their bodies, no matter how illogical; this is about our societal response, so YES, that makes it a "we" issue.