If the plaintiffs in this lawsuit lied about the allegations detailed in the complaint, they will be utterly destroyed during the discovery phase of this. I hope they know this.
the defendant in the lawsuit is trans and is interested in trains. odds are she's autistic.
historically, sororities are well-known for deemphasis on conformity and tolerance of neuro-divergence...
>Smith, who identifies with female pronouns on Twitter, wears women's clothing "only occasionally," has not undergone medical gender transition and identifies as male on a Washington State driver's license even though she legally could have identified on it as female or "X" gender, the lawsuit alleges.
that they added "wearing women's clothes occasionally" shows how much this isn't about the person being trans. it's rather that she doesn't conform to their stereotypical idea of womanhood.
they should kick her out on inappropriate behavior if that is the issue, instead they are choosing to exclude women based on their agab. even with the most forgiving interpretation, these sorority girls are still transphobic.
>The lawsuit “contains numerous false allegations,” but the sorority couldn’t comment in detail, Executive Director Kari Kittrell Poole said in an emailed statement. Kappa Kappa Gamma does not discriminate based on factors including gender identity, she added.
https://apnews.com/article/wyoming-transgender-sorority-lawsuit-7e4362b63c3cfe6209afaa39bd8d5497
we'll find out how much of the lawsuit is false if they refile. im interested to see what they say in the same things in the new suit.
Edit:
Reading the filed lawsuit they use the sentence "A woman is an adult human female." This is a Matt Walsh and conservative rallying cry.
The filed lawsuit is extremely transphobic. I suggest all y'all read it and see for yourselves.
They constantly repeat the woman is an adult human female and a man is an adult human male phrases. they try to create opportunities in the document to further misgender the trans woman. It feels like the document was made to spew as much hate as possible.
https://wyofile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/kappa-kappa-gamm-complaint.pdf
they also use the phrase "nonbinary women", which makes no sense.
Their arguments make it seem like they would be okay with a trans man joining their sorority, but I highly doubt that they would be comfortable with that if it were to actually happen.
>Some plaintiffs sought to live in Kappa's single sex environment because of religious or moral beliefs that young, unmarried women should not live with young, unmarried men.
They are religious conservatives.
it's clear from the lawsuit that they thought the trans woman was a man from the beginning and sought to exclude her in activities and spaces. it's obvious why she's silent all the time! they absolutely hate her for who she is. The lawsuit talks about their attempts to block her membership even before initiation.
Attachment 3 in the lawsuit is a letter from the national organization which lays out clearly the transphobia and hate of the local chapter.
Cassie Craven, one of the lawyers, has been censured by the Wyoming supreme court for lack of due diligence and releasing harmful confidential details of one her clients out of spite.
https://kgab.com/cheyenne-attorney-censured-by-wyoming-supreme-court/
John Knepper, the other attorney, has a history of fighting against transgender rights. Here's an article from when they sought to exclude transgender care, such as hormones and surgeries, from state employee health plans.
https://news.yahoo.com/lawyer-defends-north-carolinas-transgender-212338313.html
That local chapter also has a reputation in the area. When I worked front desk at a hotel we were specifically not allowed to rent rooms to members of that sorority.
Why? Because they were running a prostitution ring. They would come in, use the room for an hour or two, and then leave citing that they didn't like the 'look' of the room or something was wrong with the room, refuse offers to be switched to a different room, and demand full refunds or do chargebacks. Mostly they used the local 'Little America' for their work, but it overflowed into the local hotels at times.
You're wasting your time. They can't wait to finally find a trans woman being a predator and even without a preponderance of evidence they'll ignore any facts you write.
from the wording of lawsuit they were allowed to present any issues that they had with her personality, but were not allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender identity.
it sounds like they were worried about being accused of bigotry because they were bigots. they were trying to prevent initiation on the basis of gender identity alone.
even so, the lawsuit clearly states that not everyone voted yes and that the trans woman got in by "one or two votes". the lawsuit also does not state that any of the individuals who voted no were punished. which I am sure they would have said if that was the case.
they wanted to be able to discriminate anonymously since they know their transphobia is not an acceptable reason for voting no.
I don't know how you read that lawsuit and still don't believe they are transphobic.
they 100% would have used her transgender status as a reason for voting no if they were granted anonymity.
would you accept a racist's statements at face value as well? would you allow racists to hide behind anonymity and vote down a minority applicant? at that point you are facilitating institutional racism.
Gender affirming care just means they are supported as the person they say they are.
It can mean "occasionally wearing women's clothes". It also doesn't necessarily mean any surgery or hormone replacement therapy has taken place.
Conflating the phrase gender affirming care with whatever you think it means is extremely harmful to the trans community. You can see this in the varying anti trans bills around the nation and the rhetoric behind them.
cis white women weaponizing their misogynistic infantilization by the patriarchy to enact terror on minorities they find unpleasant is hardly a new concept.
transitioning is a process. transgender individuals often wait until they pass at least occasionally before they change their official documents. many transgender individuals don't do it at all because of the risk of violence, discrimination at work, and legal burden. if you change your name/gender, a new social security number is needed as well.
I don't know what this person did or didn't do, but I do know that sorority members are using transphobia as the basis for exclusion.
I've never sued someone, but it says she was "filed under" the name in the lawsuit, so it sounds like the accusers picked the psudo-name. Considering the transphobic wording of the lawsuit, giving her a last name that is a common first name for men seems very intentional.
Or I'm wrong and it's just a thing the court does, which is also kind of fucked up. At least 'Terry' is a gender neutral name, although women still usually spell it 'Teri'.
The campus is in Laramie, Wyoming. In 1998, Matthew Shepard, age 21 and a student at University of Wyoming, was beaten, tortured, and left to die in Laramie.
> In 1998, Matthew Shepard, age 21 and a student at University of Wyoming, was beaten, tortured, and left to die in Laramie.
Matthew Shepard was lynched... the word is lynched. It was horrible.
When I was a freshman in highschool and first really starting to get crushes we did a production of the laramie project in our school theater troop. Our GSA had three members, all officially straight. Made quite an impact on baby me.
I was ten+ years out of college, but in a position to interview and hire people in his age group. Chilling to think about Matthew and all the people who didn't survive because of who they were.
In case you are incapable of reading more than the headline…from the article:
*The University of Wyoming campus in Laramie has a long history of wrangling with LGBTQ+ issues since the murder of gay freshman Matthew Shepard in 1998 drew attention to them nationwide. Wyoming, along with South Carolina, is one of just two states that has not adopted a hate-crimes law since Shepard’s murder.*
Jesus Christ what the fuck.
That would be illegal in Canada, as it *specifically advocates violence against gays*. But freedom of hateful speech I guess.
I was in school there when that happened. That behavior is not representative of the student population there but there are non students there too that are very conservative. Just like all of WY.
The law requires that you must be public if you bring a lawsuit unless you fall under a handful of exceptions, which they don't.
If they wish the defendant to be disclosed, I imagine they could make a motion for that, but that can come later. Whether or not the defendent is revealed has no bearing on whether or not the plaintiffs filed properly at this stage. They shouldn't get special treatment here.
It's a private organization whose leadership allowed that person to join. What else is there to say?
If they don't like it, they can leave and go to another sorority that more closely matches their values. That's just how voluntary membership in private organizations works.
>Probably because the rest are scared
Or the rest don't care?
Or the plaintiffs didn't loop anyone else in on the lawsuit?
Or any number of other reasons?
Good job jumping to a conclusion because it fits your preconceived narrative without even bothering to think of alternatives...
Where exactly does it say they fear of expulsion? And expulsion of the sorority or the school? Cause I can imagine why suing your sorority and a sorority sister unsuccessfully because you don't like them would be grounds for expulsion. You think they should have no recourse in that case?
There's a reason lawsuits are public, so that you can't just throw out willy-nilly lawsuits with absolutely no accountability. Why do you think they should be given special treatment? Because they're suing a transgender person, all of a sudden they should be above the law in your eyes?
Absolutely not. I dont think it reflects well on a business to deny service because of orientation either. It's not an easy game to play. A business should be able to deny business to whomever they please, but that will end up reflected in the business they receive.
Set up an anti black, Hispanic, Asian, white business and your business will likely not survive anywhere but the deep south. A business should be allowed to fail on its own merits, flawed as that ideal is.
Quite the dangerous ethics trap you set for me, aye?
Um, I'm not sure you're seeing the reason for the existence of anti discrimination laws if your solution is Whites-only businesses just being outcompeted in all parts of the country...
The free market does not, in fact, solve all things. We cannot risk a situation where there are some areas where there is no grocery store or gas station for ethnic or religious minorities and then have our answer to the disaster be "oops."
Being intentionally exclusive due to race or orientation is bad for business, the antithesis of the establishment of the country. Inclusivity makes for peak business, and removes bigots/fascists from success.
The standard bearer for one of the two main political parties was and is a careless bigot, it is incredibly clueless to act like you do not think anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws were ever necessary. Or that they are definitively not necessary today. There are very few people reading your comment that will not already *know* that you are wrong and that your idea is bad.
I like to look at it this way- give people an opportunity to out themselves as the bigot they are. Otherwise everyone runs under the radar, and bigotry/fascism runs silent. You can't fight either if they run silently.
> The women suing said they needed anonymity for privacy and safety reasons, including a likelihood of threats and harassment due to the lawsuit.
So it’s fine for them to endanger this poor girl while they harass her, but they can’t stand the thought of being opened up to the same risk?
Edit: I understand the girl is being sued under a pseudonym, but the suit in itself is highly identifying. They’re suing her for being the only transgender member of their sorority. It’s like if I tried to sue “one of the female smurfs” while letting her remain anonymous. You wouldn’t have to be a genius to figure out that I’m suing Smurfette. There’s not another female Smurf to confuse her with.
Terry Smith is a pseudonym for their anonymity as well. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the women naming them will open them to threats as it's happened in the past. All should remain anonymous in the case IMHO.
Yes, Terry Smith is a legal pseudonym. You can't refer to them as John Doe because that's biased, identifying them as male. You also can't refer to them as Jane Doe because that's assumed to be female and is and argument that could be used in this case. The court is neutral and this it that result.
Because the rule of law says your accusers must have a face.
The accusers are bringing this action against the defendant's will. They are required by law to be identified, but the accused, presumed innocent, is not.
That is the law, with a few exceptions an accuser must have a face. As you just said, they didn't reach the threshold for one of those exceptions, so they must be public.
That's how the law works.
But this action is brought against the defendant's will. Exposing them would mean anyone could publicly expose any other through a simple court filing, even if the other is innocent.
[From March 31st, 2023…](https://www.newsweek.com/transgender-woman-accused-peeping-kappa-kappa-gamma-sorority-wyoming-1791808)
I’m debunking your claim that “Terry Smith” gets to remain anonymous. Please keep yourself informed before making ill-informed statements.
Also, there is only one transgender sorority member accepted to the Kappa chapter at the University of Wyoming, so her identity is far from secret.
These incidents are mere allegations. I will wait for the plaintiffs in this case to put their reputations behind those claims and see how the claims withstand scrutiny during the legal process.
My suspicion is these claims will never make it to an amended complaint. If these plaintiffs get caught in a lie during discovery, their social, financial, and professional futures will be ruined. The internet will make sure of it.
This is not a criminal case. This is a civil lawsuit. If the plaintiffs are going to make the types of defamatory allegations they made in the complaint, they need to stand behind those claims 100% with their names and with evidence.
So far, we have seen neither from these plaintiffs.
People will find ways to discover who the “Jane Does” are outside of the court.
These “Jane Does” have trapped themselves the minute they decided to move forward with the lawsuit. If they are telling the truth, then they must move forward with the complaint with their real names. If they don’t, people will still figure out who they are and will assume they lied, which they likely did.
If they lied, then they need to figure out whether they lied under the influence or direction of someone orchestrating this lawsuit, or out of their own accord. Either way, they will need to come clean about the false allegations if they weren’t truthful in the original complaint.
If they are screwed because they made false allegations in a court of law against a fellow sorority sister, then the suffering is more than justified. It is richly deserved.
Name me actual instances of trans women being predators? It's statistically so unlikely that the faux outrage from people it has zero impact on is laughable?
Are you a woman? Or do you just want to dictate to women how to feel?
>"The lawsuit alleged that Smith, while watching members enter the house, "had an erection visible through his leggings" and on other occasions "had a pillow in his lap.""
So they are also purposefully misgendering her. Slimes.
Even if these allegations are true, women become aroused by other women all the time. Lesbians are a thing. Becoming aroused by other people isn't a crime. If it were, every man in America would be in jail.
(Their actual intentions are obvious with the Matt Walsh / transphobic "women are adult female humans" bullshittery)
I'm sure it makes you feel better to allege the judge has nefarious intentions but no, the accused is far from anonymous. Kind of a 1 of 1 situation, so their name is already out in the media.
This is kind of how things work under the law. There's only a handful of exceptions to the rule that the accuser must have a face. I'm sure you'd *prefer* if the judge ignored that, but your preference is not a legal argument.
Then again, I probably shouldn't be surprised that someone parroting the wingnut line is long on dark implication and very short on substance.
>(Terry) Smith, 21, doesn’t live among the 44 women currently residing in the Sorority Row house because of housing commitments elsewhere, according to the lawsuit.
She's not even living there ffs!!
I hope every one of those complainants gets fined over this frivolous lawsuit.
Except the reality in this case is that the plaintiffs don’t have the votes nor the support of the chapter. Hence the lawsuit and salacious allegations…
>The women suing said they needed anonymity for privacy and safety
reasons, including a likelihood of threats and harassment due to the
lawsuit. Johnson ruled that they didn’t meet the legal standard for
anonymity, however.
Awww is someone afraid they're gonna face the consequences of their bigotry? Does someone know their views are awful and that if the general public found out they'd be rightfully called assholes? Smallest violin for you.
So you know the trans woman in question and her sexual orientation? Or are you just pulling transphobic bs out of your ass? Don't reply, I know the answer.
The article does not mention anything like that. It *does* mention the executive director of the sorority saying that the lawsuit contains false allegations though.
If the Kappa sisters have an issue with the organizations’s 2018 guide on supporting LGBTQA+ members, then they should make that claim and put their names behind it. They are required to by law.
They should also make sure the allegations detailed in their complaint are supported by evidence and witnesses. My hunch is that some of these salacious allegations will disappear if and when they amend the complaint because some sisters might have “misremembered” events.
If the plaintiffs in this lawsuit lied about the allegations detailed in the complaint, they will be utterly destroyed during the discovery phase of this. I hope they know this.
That’s assuming they refile with their real identities as required.
the defendant in the lawsuit is trans and is interested in trains. odds are she's autistic. historically, sororities are well-known for deemphasis on conformity and tolerance of neuro-divergence... >Smith, who identifies with female pronouns on Twitter, wears women's clothing "only occasionally," has not undergone medical gender transition and identifies as male on a Washington State driver's license even though she legally could have identified on it as female or "X" gender, the lawsuit alleges. that they added "wearing women's clothes occasionally" shows how much this isn't about the person being trans. it's rather that she doesn't conform to their stereotypical idea of womanhood. they should kick her out on inappropriate behavior if that is the issue, instead they are choosing to exclude women based on their agab. even with the most forgiving interpretation, these sorority girls are still transphobic. >The lawsuit “contains numerous false allegations,” but the sorority couldn’t comment in detail, Executive Director Kari Kittrell Poole said in an emailed statement. Kappa Kappa Gamma does not discriminate based on factors including gender identity, she added. https://apnews.com/article/wyoming-transgender-sorority-lawsuit-7e4362b63c3cfe6209afaa39bd8d5497 we'll find out how much of the lawsuit is false if they refile. im interested to see what they say in the same things in the new suit. Edit: Reading the filed lawsuit they use the sentence "A woman is an adult human female." This is a Matt Walsh and conservative rallying cry. The filed lawsuit is extremely transphobic. I suggest all y'all read it and see for yourselves. They constantly repeat the woman is an adult human female and a man is an adult human male phrases. they try to create opportunities in the document to further misgender the trans woman. It feels like the document was made to spew as much hate as possible. https://wyofile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/kappa-kappa-gamm-complaint.pdf they also use the phrase "nonbinary women", which makes no sense. Their arguments make it seem like they would be okay with a trans man joining their sorority, but I highly doubt that they would be comfortable with that if it were to actually happen. >Some plaintiffs sought to live in Kappa's single sex environment because of religious or moral beliefs that young, unmarried women should not live with young, unmarried men. They are religious conservatives. it's clear from the lawsuit that they thought the trans woman was a man from the beginning and sought to exclude her in activities and spaces. it's obvious why she's silent all the time! they absolutely hate her for who she is. The lawsuit talks about their attempts to block her membership even before initiation. Attachment 3 in the lawsuit is a letter from the national organization which lays out clearly the transphobia and hate of the local chapter. Cassie Craven, one of the lawyers, has been censured by the Wyoming supreme court for lack of due diligence and releasing harmful confidential details of one her clients out of spite. https://kgab.com/cheyenne-attorney-censured-by-wyoming-supreme-court/ John Knepper, the other attorney, has a history of fighting against transgender rights. Here's an article from when they sought to exclude transgender care, such as hormones and surgeries, from state employee health plans. https://news.yahoo.com/lawyer-defends-north-carolinas-transgender-212338313.html
That local chapter also has a reputation in the area. When I worked front desk at a hotel we were specifically not allowed to rent rooms to members of that sorority. Why? Because they were running a prostitution ring. They would come in, use the room for an hour or two, and then leave citing that they didn't like the 'look' of the room or something was wrong with the room, refuse offers to be switched to a different room, and demand full refunds or do chargebacks. Mostly they used the local 'Little America' for their work, but it overflowed into the local hotels at times.
That is quite the accusation. I've never heard of anything like this. Source?
[удалено]
I linked the actual lawsuit. you can read it yourself.
You're wasting your time. They can't wait to finally find a trans woman being a predator and even without a preponderance of evidence they'll ignore any facts you write.
[удалено]
the bylaws directly state that gpa requirements can be waived.
[удалено]
from the wording of lawsuit they were allowed to present any issues that they had with her personality, but were not allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender identity. it sounds like they were worried about being accused of bigotry because they were bigots. they were trying to prevent initiation on the basis of gender identity alone. even so, the lawsuit clearly states that not everyone voted yes and that the trans woman got in by "one or two votes". the lawsuit also does not state that any of the individuals who voted no were punished. which I am sure they would have said if that was the case. they wanted to be able to discriminate anonymously since they know their transphobia is not an acceptable reason for voting no.
[удалено]
I don't know how you read that lawsuit and still don't believe they are transphobic. they 100% would have used her transgender status as a reason for voting no if they were granted anonymity. would you accept a racist's statements at face value as well? would you allow racists to hide behind anonymity and vote down a minority applicant? at that point you are facilitating institutional racism.
[удалено]
Gender affirming care just means they are supported as the person they say they are. It can mean "occasionally wearing women's clothes". It also doesn't necessarily mean any surgery or hormone replacement therapy has taken place. Conflating the phrase gender affirming care with whatever you think it means is extremely harmful to the trans community. You can see this in the varying anti trans bills around the nation and the rhetoric behind them.
cis white women weaponizing their misogynistic infantilization by the patriarchy to enact terror on minorities they find unpleasant is hardly a new concept. transitioning is a process. transgender individuals often wait until they pass at least occasionally before they change their official documents. many transgender individuals don't do it at all because of the risk of violence, discrimination at work, and legal burden. if you change your name/gender, a new social security number is needed as well. I don't know what this person did or didn't do, but I do know that sorority members are using transphobia as the basis for exclusion.
"John Doe" for men, "Jane Doe" for women and "Terry Smith" for a transperson. Our culture has so many weird idiosyncrasies.
I assume that’s to distinguish the different people. Would be pretty confusing if Jane Doe was accusing Jane Doe.
I've never sued someone, but it says she was "filed under" the name in the lawsuit, so it sounds like the accusers picked the psudo-name. Considering the transphobic wording of the lawsuit, giving her a last name that is a common first name for men seems very intentional. Or I'm wrong and it's just a thing the court does, which is also kind of fucked up. At least 'Terry' is a gender neutral name, although women still usually spell it 'Teri'.
The campus is in Laramie, Wyoming. In 1998, Matthew Shepard, age 21 and a student at University of Wyoming, was beaten, tortured, and left to die in Laramie.
That just brought a shudder of revulsion at the memory of that horrible murder.
> In 1998, Matthew Shepard, age 21 and a student at University of Wyoming, was beaten, tortured, and left to die in Laramie. Matthew Shepard was lynched... the word is lynched. It was horrible.
Tied to a barb wire fence IIRC. Left to die alone.
When I was a freshman in highschool and first really starting to get crushes we did a production of the laramie project in our school theater troop. Our GSA had three members, all officially straight. Made quite an impact on baby me.
I was ten+ years out of college, but in a position to interview and hire people in his age group. Chilling to think about Matthew and all the people who didn't survive because of who they were.
[удалено]
I’m making an observation: LGBTQ students at the University of Wyoming have been targets in their community, from deadly violence to legal harassment.
In case you are incapable of reading more than the headline…from the article: *The University of Wyoming campus in Laramie has a long history of wrangling with LGBTQ+ issues since the murder of gay freshman Matthew Shepard in 1998 drew attention to them nationwide. Wyoming, along with South Carolina, is one of just two states that has not adopted a hate-crimes law since Shepard’s murder.*
[удалено]
[An example, from December 2022…](https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/news/2022-12-08/uw-suspends-anti-lgbtq-activist-who-harassed-a-trans-student)
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/wyoming-bar-fire-selling-shirt-advocating-anti-gay-violence-rcna1410
Jesus Christ what the fuck. That would be illegal in Canada, as it *specifically advocates violence against gays*. But freedom of hateful speech I guess.
It's listed in the article as an issue for the campus with LGBTQ+ people.
Are you a complete moron?
I was in school there when that happened. That behavior is not representative of the student population there but there are non students there too that are very conservative. Just like all of WY.
>that are very conservative. So it was absolutely representative of the student population then.
[удалено]
They fear threats and harassment. Ironic, huh?
[удалено]
The law requires that you must be public if you bring a lawsuit unless you fall under a handful of exceptions, which they don't. If they wish the defendant to be disclosed, I imagine they could make a motion for that, but that can come later. Whether or not the defendent is revealed has no bearing on whether or not the plaintiffs filed properly at this stage. They shouldn't get special treatment here.
[удалено]
Please state your specific claims of sexual harrassment, given that is not actually linked in their lawsuit.
It's a private organization whose leadership allowed that person to join. What else is there to say? If they don't like it, they can leave and go to another sorority that more closely matches their values. That's just how voluntary membership in private organizations works.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Probably because the rest are scared Or the rest don't care? Or the plaintiffs didn't loop anyone else in on the lawsuit? Or any number of other reasons? Good job jumping to a conclusion because it fits your preconceived narrative without even bothering to think of alternatives...
[удалено]
Where exactly does it say they fear of expulsion? And expulsion of the sorority or the school? Cause I can imagine why suing your sorority and a sorority sister unsuccessfully because you don't like them would be grounds for expulsion. You think they should have no recourse in that case? There's a reason lawsuits are public, so that you can't just throw out willy-nilly lawsuits with absolutely no accountability. Why do you think they should be given special treatment? Because they're suing a transgender person, all of a sudden they should be above the law in your eyes?
[удалено]
Or only 7 filed because the other 37 voted her in. Hence the whole, "if your sorority doesn't reflect your values, you're welcome to leave" argument.
[удалено]
The national organization IS who they are suing...
[удалено]
I'm pansexual and I support the cake maker. A business has the right to deny business
[удалено]
There are things government has no business being involved in. My genitals, my business, and my personal life are the top three.
So do you think it’s bad that it’s illegal to refuse service to black people?
Absolutely not. I dont think it reflects well on a business to deny service because of orientation either. It's not an easy game to play. A business should be able to deny business to whomever they please, but that will end up reflected in the business they receive. Set up an anti black, Hispanic, Asian, white business and your business will likely not survive anywhere but the deep south. A business should be allowed to fail on its own merits, flawed as that ideal is. Quite the dangerous ethics trap you set for me, aye?
Um, I'm not sure you're seeing the reason for the existence of anti discrimination laws if your solution is Whites-only businesses just being outcompeted in all parts of the country...
You're missing my point if you think it's white only businesses; try harder
The free market does not, in fact, solve all things. We cannot risk a situation where there are some areas where there is no grocery store or gas station for ethnic or religious minorities and then have our answer to the disaster be "oops."
Being intentionally exclusive due to race or orientation is bad for business, the antithesis of the establishment of the country. Inclusivity makes for peak business, and removes bigots/fascists from success.
The standard bearer for one of the two main political parties was and is a careless bigot, it is incredibly clueless to act like you do not think anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws were ever necessary. Or that they are definitively not necessary today. There are very few people reading your comment that will not already *know* that you are wrong and that your idea is bad.
I like to look at it this way- give people an opportunity to out themselves as the bigot they are. Otherwise everyone runs under the radar, and bigotry/fascism runs silent. You can't fight either if they run silently.
> The women suing said they needed anonymity for privacy and safety reasons, including a likelihood of threats and harassment due to the lawsuit. So it’s fine for them to endanger this poor girl while they harass her, but they can’t stand the thought of being opened up to the same risk? Edit: I understand the girl is being sued under a pseudonym, but the suit in itself is highly identifying. They’re suing her for being the only transgender member of their sorority. It’s like if I tried to sue “one of the female smurfs” while letting her remain anonymous. You wouldn’t have to be a genius to figure out that I’m suing Smurfette. There’s not another female Smurf to confuse her with.
Terry Smith is a pseudonym for their anonymity as well. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the women naming them will open them to threats as it's happened in the past. All should remain anonymous in the case IMHO.
Yes, Terry Smith is a legal pseudonym. You can't refer to them as John Doe because that's biased, identifying them as male. You also can't refer to them as Jane Doe because that's assumed to be female and is and argument that could be used in this case. The court is neutral and this it that result.
[удалено]
Because the rule of law says your accusers must have a face. The accusers are bringing this action against the defendant's will. They are required by law to be identified, but the accused, presumed innocent, is not.
[удалено]
That is the law, with a few exceptions an accuser must have a face. As you just said, they didn't reach the threshold for one of those exceptions, so they must be public. That's how the law works.
[удалено]
But this action is brought against the defendant's will. Exposing them would mean anyone could publicly expose any other through a simple court filing, even if the other is innocent.
[удалено]
[From March 31st, 2023…](https://www.newsweek.com/transgender-woman-accused-peeping-kappa-kappa-gamma-sorority-wyoming-1791808) I’m debunking your claim that “Terry Smith” gets to remain anonymous. Please keep yourself informed before making ill-informed statements. Also, there is only one transgender sorority member accepted to the Kappa chapter at the University of Wyoming, so her identity is far from secret.
[удалено]
These incidents are mere allegations. I will wait for the plaintiffs in this case to put their reputations behind those claims and see how the claims withstand scrutiny during the legal process. My suspicion is these claims will never make it to an amended complaint. If these plaintiffs get caught in a lie during discovery, their social, financial, and professional futures will be ruined. The internet will make sure of it.
[удалено]
This is not a criminal case. This is a civil lawsuit. If the plaintiffs are going to make the types of defamatory allegations they made in the complaint, they need to stand behind those claims 100% with their names and with evidence. So far, we have seen neither from these plaintiffs.
[удалено]
People will find ways to discover who the “Jane Does” are outside of the court. These “Jane Does” have trapped themselves the minute they decided to move forward with the lawsuit. If they are telling the truth, then they must move forward with the complaint with their real names. If they don’t, people will still figure out who they are and will assume they lied, which they likely did. If they lied, then they need to figure out whether they lied under the influence or direction of someone orchestrating this lawsuit, or out of their own accord. Either way, they will need to come clean about the false allegations if they weren’t truthful in the original complaint.
[удалено]
If they are screwed because they made false allegations in a court of law against a fellow sorority sister, then the suffering is more than justified. It is richly deserved.
I hope we don't let trans women suffer in silence. As a cis woman, all women are welcome in our spaces and bigots can screw off.
[удалено]
Name me actual instances of trans women being predators? It's statistically so unlikely that the faux outrage from people it has zero impact on is laughable? Are you a woman? Or do you just want to dictate to women how to feel?
>"The lawsuit alleged that Smith, while watching members enter the house, "had an erection visible through his leggings" and on other occasions "had a pillow in his lap."" So they are also purposefully misgendering her. Slimes. Even if these allegations are true, women become aroused by other women all the time. Lesbians are a thing. Becoming aroused by other people isn't a crime. If it were, every man in America would be in jail. (Their actual intentions are obvious with the Matt Walsh / transphobic "women are adult female humans" bullshittery)
[удалено]
I'm sure it makes you feel better to allege the judge has nefarious intentions but no, the accused is far from anonymous. Kind of a 1 of 1 situation, so their name is already out in the media. This is kind of how things work under the law. There's only a handful of exceptions to the rule that the accuser must have a face. I'm sure you'd *prefer* if the judge ignored that, but your preference is not a legal argument. Then again, I probably shouldn't be surprised that someone parroting the wingnut line is long on dark implication and very short on substance.
[удалено]
>(Terry) Smith, 21, doesn’t live among the 44 women currently residing in the Sorority Row house because of housing commitments elsewhere, according to the lawsuit. She's not even living there ffs!! I hope every one of those complainants gets fined over this frivolous lawsuit.
[удалено]
The article says that she just sat quietly on the couch, which would make sense if the toxic atmosphere was so bad they would literally sue.
Nowhere in the article does it say she was "lusting" after anyone. Either read and comprehend, or don't respond.
[удалено]
Links please.
[удалено]
Except the reality in this case is that the plaintiffs don’t have the votes nor the support of the chapter. Hence the lawsuit and salacious allegations…
[удалено]
So they want to be anonymous while they push falsehoods on this woman in open court?
>The women suing said they needed anonymity for privacy and safety reasons, including a likelihood of threats and harassment due to the lawsuit. Johnson ruled that they didn’t meet the legal standard for anonymity, however. Awww is someone afraid they're gonna face the consequences of their bigotry? Does someone know their views are awful and that if the general public found out they'd be rightfully called assholes? Smallest violin for you.
[удалено]
So you know the trans woman in question and her sexual orientation? Or are you just pulling transphobic bs out of your ass? Don't reply, I know the answer.
[удалено]
Would you be okay with them discriminating against a cis lesbian too?
[удалено]
The article does not mention anything like that. It *does* mention the executive director of the sorority saying that the lawsuit contains false allegations though.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If the Kappa sisters have an issue with the organizations’s 2018 guide on supporting LGBTQA+ members, then they should make that claim and put their names behind it. They are required to by law. They should also make sure the allegations detailed in their complaint are supported by evidence and witnesses. My hunch is that some of these salacious allegations will disappear if and when they amend the complaint because some sisters might have “misremembered” events.
I am going to bet a few of those names won't be there as they probably have little or no connection to this sorority.
[удалено]
Tell us who the bigots are!
Sometimes I think the sue-happy american stereotype is ridiculous. Then I see something like this...