Change your definition, sluts
Trans “activism” can never get enough punishment of women; it always wants more more more.
Two University of Wyoming sorority alumni have been callously removed as members after more than 50 years by the national organization after supporting a lawsuit to oust the first transgender member.
Kappa Kappa Gamma sisters at University of Wyoming alleged earlier this year that the 6ft2, 260lb trans member would ‘peep at (the other girls) while visibly aroused’
Patsy Levang and Cheryl Tuck-Smith, who had been with Kappa Kappa Gamma for more than 50 years, were expelled after they allegedly fundraised for the lawsuit contesting the sorority’s admission of a transgender woman.
That’ll show those evil bitches.
A district court judge found in favor of the sorority and Langford in Westenbroek v. Kappa Kappa Gamma, ruling that the sorority’s bylaws – as a private, voluntary organization – don’t define who’s a woman.
The six members had raised safety concerns and detailed allegations against Langford, but said they were told to ‘change our definition of woman’ in the September 2022 lawsuit
Women are told to change their definition of woman to mean the opposite of what it means.
That’s like being told to change your definition of “day” so that it includes “night” or your definition of “on” so that it includes “off.” You have to change your definition of this word so that it includes its own opposite. Let’s do that with all the words, and see how it goes.
At the heart of the lawsuit was the issue of defining a ‘woman’, with the sorority sisters arguing that because KKG’s governing documents define it as a space exclusively for females, the organization broke its own rules by admitting a biological male.
The sisters claimed that the sorority changed its criteria to allow Langford to apply, while KKGs lawyers said the definition of ‘woman’ has evolved since the sorority’s founding 150 years ago.
Yeah right it’s “evolved” to include men.
Ok so then can we have a word that means what “women” used to mean? “Wimen” maybe? “Wominn”? Something like that? Because we do still need a word that means “women” – not “women plus any men who feel like calling themselves women.”
‘The term (woman) is unquestionably open to many interpretations,’ the sorority’s filing claimed.
Yeah? Like what? Can it mean seal? Trumpet? Cheese sandwich? Moon? Luxury yacht?
Also that “unquestionably” is a bit of a laugh. Hello, I’m questioning your assertion.
Although the plaintiffs offered a definition in their lawsuit as an ‘adult human female’, KKG said this was restrictive, and were seeking to dismiss on the basis of changing views around what constitutes a ‘woman’.
No, let’s not do that. We all know perfectly well “what constitutes a ‘woman’.” We have not consented to changing the meaning of the word so that men can use it and then push us out of it.
But definitions are restrictive by definition. Or has the definition of ‘definition’ been changed while nobody was looking?
Exactly. The whole POINT of definitions is to be restrictive. Godalmighty these people.
Lawyers and judges know what words mean; they have to so they can twist them and use them to their own ends. They are twisting the definition of woman to the extent that it might as well be pretzel.
That’s a strange ruling. It’s true the sorority does not have the power to redefine language for the broader population… but they didn’t do or even attempt that. They changed the word’s definition in their rules, and thus changed the rules. Members signed on thinking ‘women only’ meant ‘female people only’, but the leadership subverted that.
This is why I object strenuously to trans activist language – it’s useless. Try to state simple realities like female, woman, girl, biological sex, and the best you’ll get is an interminably long argument about old ideas and colonialism. At worst it’s assumed that such words, concepts and realities are without value, and may be ignored, or trampled at will.
“Women are told to change their definition of woman to mean the opposite of what it means.”
Except here no one told the sorority to change the definition. The leadership chose to do that, and the court affirmed their right as a private member organization to define their membership criteria. I think conceptually the judge got it right. Private organizations should have as much right to include TIMs in their definition of women as private organizations should have the right to exclude TIMs. Whether the Plaintiffs had a case based on the sorority changing the definition after they joined is a question the Court did not answer.
But this case was not a decision where the courts are forcing anyone or any organization to accept TIMs if their criteria excludes males.