A federal judge has made a decision stating that a transgender individual who identifies as a “woman” should be allowed to become a member of a sorority. In this case, six members of the Wyoming chapter of the sorority took legal action with the intention of removing the transgender woman from their campus residence, citing discomfort. Regrettably, the judge has argued that there is no clear definition of what constitutes a woman.
In September of the previous year, the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority, located at the University of Wyoming, accepted a new member named Artemis Langford. However, the issue arose because “Artemis” is, in fact, a 6’2″, 260-pound individual who previously went by the name Dallin.
This situation quickly became problematic for the female members of the sorority, with several of them expressing concerns about Langford’s behavior. Some reported instances where Langford allegedly watched them while they were changing clothes and even experienced instances where Langford had an erection during these occurrences.
In March, a group of these sorority members initiated a legal action against the national organization of the sorority, asserting that Langford’s presence had created a constant atmosphere of fear for them.
One member shared that a fellow sorority sister who had experienced sexual assault felt particularly distressed because they had previously considered the sorority house a place of safety until Langford’s presence disrupted that sense of security. Additionally, the women contended that the national Kappa Kappa Gamma organization had exerted pressure on the Wyoming chapter to admit Langford.
On August 25, Judge Alan Johnson of the US District Court made a decision to dismiss the case. Judge Johnson ruled that the sorority holds a fundamental right as a private and voluntary organization to choose its members, and he asserted that the court could not interfere with this right. However, despite the fact that the rules of Kappa Kappa Gamma state that a new member must be a woman, Judge Johnson pointed out that these rules lack a clear definition of what constitutes a woman, and he declared that the court would not establish such a definition.
Rachel Berkness, the attorney representing Langford, argued that the allegations against her client were unfounded and amounted to unkind rumors. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs in the case expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling. One of their attorneys, Cassie Craven, stated her intention to continue advocating for the recognition of women’s biological identity.
