WaPo on Wisconsin sorority case

[GrumpyPanda]

Took a while to see this case coming up in a mainstream publication. Lots of unsurprising be kind rhetoric but a couple of new facts. One, so it's yet another autistic individual at the centre of this. Two, apparently the failed lawsuit against their acceptance was abysmally badly written.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/interactive/2023/trans-women-sorority-kappa-kappa-gamma-wyoming

My God, the gaslighting is enough to be seen from space. I'm as mad as Hell, I can only imagine how angry all of you are.

Females having effectively to accommodate a sad, but male, individual. Is he a predator? Irrelevant. Is he the most gentle of gentle souls? Irrelevant.

Women are now being asked not to just dissolve all their spaces, but effectively care for an autistic individual. Because this is why he IDs as a woman, and is being housed with women.

I can’t make it all the way through that article. It isn’t a piece of journalism - it’s ridiculously emotive propaganda.

But what did stand out to me from what I managed to wade through was that the article is about an autistic boy who grew up gay in a Mormon community where he was taught that being gay was a sin and being attracted to men made you a woman.

All these brave American liberals so desperate to demonise young women so that they can avoid addressing the elephant in the room. It’s depressing.

@RealityFan seems from this they dropped plans to actually house him in the building for his second year. But more gaslighting saying it's because he wouldn't be safe (?)

So "be kind" ends up "be unkind". To the women, their boundaries disappeared.

And to this individual who needs both help, and not having the truth withheld from him...that he's a male.

Everyone's a loser.

Previous puff piece here

https://wyofile.com/this-is-artemis-langford-uws-first-transgender-sorority-sister-speaks/

The comments are an interesting mix of be kind/I know this person personally/sex exists and this is madness

So female students, instead of focusing on themselves and their studies, have to babysit an awkward young man and be of service to him?

Sod that.

He's a bloke, he'll always be a bloke and he already has a sodding Mommy. Why should young women put aside their own lives to look after him??

I have a WaPo subscription, but can't see anywhere to add comments.

In the past they have published some reasonable articles, say on single sex sport, and comments have been supportive.

I read somewhere that the owner, Jeff Bezos, is increasingly frustrated by the emotional and uncritical nature of so much of the journalism. Its not as bad as the NYT, but in a country with so much talent, it ought to be better.

Havent read the article as it wants me to subscribe or give them my email.

This report suggests Artemis became visibly sexually aroused around the girls https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-host-praises-trans-sorority-member-accused-peeping-threatening-behavior-brave-woman.amp

So does the article suggest Artemis is gay means Artemis is a trans lesbian?

This should work, though be warned it would be a heavy read even if it were not so sickly:

https://wapo.st/3QgXd5W

Isn't Fox News supposed to be the "alt-right" so not to be read by kind people.

@Berthatydfil the trick with WaPo (samecas with NYT) is to disable Java. They used to also have geoblocking in place, so you'd need a VPN in addition, but I think that's gone.

Here's a substack piece focusing on some of the legal aspects of the case. The crux apparently was the sorority itself defining women as "identify as", with the judge saying, well that's up to them. I remember Twitter voices commenting that at least under this reasoning, there can't be Aussie-style shenanigans about lesbians not being permitted their own idea of who's a lesbian.

https://genevievegluck.substack.com/p/wyoming-sorority-members-forced-to

This report suggests Artemis became visibly sexually aroused around the girls

Exactly, he wasn't just awkward and vulnerable according to them.

I briefly subscribed a few years back when they had a very cheap offer for people in the UK. I hastily unsubscribed when the offer was up because the journalism imo was poor and lacked insight or depth most of the time.

The turning up early and standing watching as the young women got changed is indefensibly creepy. Women don’t do that.

There may also be a 3 letter acronym (usually referring to later transitioners) that explains erections in female spaces.

Me too. I got a cheap subscription during lockdown and then failed to renew at which point they offer me another at the original cheap rate.

That said I am not sure it represents good value for money. The journalism is poor, and seems to depend heavily on anecdote and emotion.

Its clearly written to elicit sympathy but I don't know how they can expect us to be sympathetic to someone whos been told explicitly that they are making women uncomfortable and persists in being present.

Why not highlight all the autistic women in the sorority, oh wait there probably aren't any because they would be just deemed awkward and not special like Artemis.

There's more on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/WomenReadWomen/status/1713268080917578208

""Artemis" Langford first declared a transgender status while participating in a mock micronations community, where he referred to himself as a Queen and "Her Majesty."

https://web.archive.org/web/20230329174650/micronations.wiki/wiki/Monarchy_of_St._Castle…"

Hmm...the truth hurts, doesn't it??

What 'rule' does using the acronym break?

MN etiquette. Though they seem to have become more lenient lately (or this thread would be long gone for consistent misgendering 🤣.)

reading the comments has reminded me how utterly stupid people are.

''THANKYOU MS LANGFORD, YOU ARE A BEAUTIFUL SOUL'' - says stranger, who has never met the man that has allegedly been sexually inappropriate to women...

This part bothered me:
"There was a slumber party at the sorority. Artemis — who attended but didn’t sleep over, because she didn’t live at the Kappa house — returned in the morning, according to the lawsuit, and stood silently in a corner while others changed out of their pajamas."

There seems to be some disagreement over whether or not Artemis was visibly aroused when this was happening, with the lawsuit landing on the conclusion that there was no visible evidence of such. This seemed to imply that the sister who was changing had no grounds to prevent the presence of Artemis unless Artemis was visibly aroused. The article is written in such a confusing and biased way that it is very difficult to discover exactly what the author of the article is saying, but as I read it, my interpretation is that the author of the article is saying that, as long as a biological male does not become visibly aroused, it is acceptable for him to watch a woman undress, even if she does not wish him to watch her.

The article as a whole made me a bit nauseated. No matter how the legal situation here in the USA ends up for women (and I don't see things going anywhere good, frankly), the fact that prestigious newspapers are allowing articles this biased to be published, shows how power is stacked against women. It's just the relentless pressure to "be kind" that always frames a woman standing up for her own privacy and dignity as if SHE is the villain. I am Catholic and even in the Church so many people are too weak to stand up for women and girls, (apparently out of having decided LGBTQ+ people need their support more than girls do) that I just feel like there's nowhere safe.

I do believe we're looking at the Park Bench Theory Of Intersectionality.

Women have acquired effective full rights as men, there is nigh on no difference between men and women in law.

Intersectional theory demands that those in power defer to those more powerless.

Men and women, equal, top of the tree. Transmen and transwomen, victimised and disadvantaged. Those in power can shove up the park bench a little to allow the powerless to gain power, and become equal.

For men, there is no negative. Transmen in men's toilets, changing rooms, other than some low level embarasment, men can shrug it off. Transmen no power threat in men's sport or prisons. Ok, men haven't liked women in their cosy clubs or social scenes, but that's been happening for a while, so transmen there is no great shakes.

So leftist progressive men can lord it as justice that they have no issue with trans in their spaces.

Because women are ostensibly now the same as men in legal rights terms, the same is expected. Powerful women to budge over to share female privilege with underprivileged transwomen.

I truly believe this is the mindset of progressive men and their handmaidens.

However, as we all know, nowhere near as seamless and unremarkable as transmen in men's spaces.

That's why a captured media can brazenly run a puff piece like this where this individual is absolutely not recognised as an intruder, but as a victim, women are the victimizers.

Yes I agree, and I think the root cause is to think that men and women must be identical in order to be equal. Hence "biological essentialism" being a pejorative. In other words, to say that men and women are different, is to say that women might be lesser. We can't say that, so we have to say that men and women are NOT different. In order to say that men and women are not different, we must redefine womanhood in such a way as to erase those differences, which means ignoring biology. Now that we've redefined womanhood so it has nothing to do with biology, there's no reason men can't be women if they want to.

The problem, in my view, is with thinking that in order for women to be "equal" they must be identical with men. Such a view still holds men as the standard. Women are acceptable to the extent they can imitate maleness: good at things like math? Great, you can do STEM jobs, just like a man. Fast and strong? Good, men like that. Maybe they'll even pay to watch you play your sport on tv. You're great with kids? Nah, no one cares, go to the back of the line and maybe get a low paid job in childcare.

It solves the problem of "equal" in the sense that SOME women can win now. But for women in general, they are still at a disadvantage (on average) unless they have talents that allow them to compete successfully with men.

Notice how these articles never run a picture of the "victim" standing beside their "agressors".

Never.

Now why is that?

Could it be that their duplictious fuckwittery would be nicely illustrated for the con job it is? And by they I mean the "victim", the journalist, and the WaPo editor who let this article go to press.

Update: the appeal against the admission of a male student to a female sorority has been lost:
<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/2024.06.13-232249/www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/kappa-kappa-gamma-sorority-university-of-wyoming-trans-2ttbhc593" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.is/2024.06.13-232249/www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/kappa-kappa-gamma-sorority-university-of-wyoming-trans-2ttbhc593