Woman’ is not an ambiguous term open to an evolving interpretation.” - the attorneys representing the women who want to keep the sorority house they pay $8,000 for male free.
By Genevieve Gluck December 14, 2023
The female complainants at the center of a lawsuit to have a trans-identified male removed from a sorority at the University of Wyoming have re-filed their appeal, demanding the court clearly define the word “woman.” Artemis Langford, previously known as Dallin, was accepted into Kappa Kappa Gamma (KKG) last September, spurring several women to file a lawsuit to have him removed.
In August, the case of Westenbroek v. Kappa Kappa Gamma Fraternity was dismissed on the basis that re-defining “woman” to include males was “Kappa Kappa Gamma’s bedrock right.” Despite hearing testimony from the women, some of whom stated Langford had “watched” them undress with an erection, Judge Alan Johnson rejected the women’s request to rescind Langford’s admission into the sorority.
However, on December 4, the young women filed an appeal to have the dismissal reversed, arguing that Langford’s presence in the sorority house “caused emotional distress in a personalized and unique way,” and demanding that the court clearly define the word “woman.”
In the appeal, the women reassert that Langford displayed “strange and sexual behavior” towards them, and caused them a level of discomfort and anxiety amounting to personal injury. It reiterates claims that Langford had been filming and photographing the women without their consent and had displayed a visible erection while in the house.
“Specifically, Langford’s unwanted staring, photographing, and videotaping of the Plaintiffs, as well as his asking questions about sex and displaying a visible erection while in the house, invaded Plaintiffs’ privacy and caused emotional distress in a personalized and unique way. And thus Plaintiffs have pleaded a viable direct claim. This Court should therefore reverse the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ derivative and direct claims,” the appeal reads.
Some of the allegations are a reiteration of previous claims, which Langford’s attorney, Rachel Berkness, has attempted to portray as both false and discriminatory during court proceedings. In June, Berkness filed a motion to dismiss the sorority women’s claims against Langford as “frivolous and malicious,” stating: “The allegations against Ms. Langford … were borne out of a hypothesis in search of evidence and pieced together using drunken party stories. Ms. Langford is not a victim; she is a target.”
The initial suit, filed at the end of March, had asserted that Langford, who is 6’2″, had been voyeuristically peeping on the women while they were in intimate situations, and, on at least one occasion, had a visible erection while doing so.
“One sorority member walked down the hall to take a shower, wearing only a towel … She felt an unsettling presence, turned, and saw [Langford] watching her silently,” the court document reads.
“[Langford] has, while watching members enter the sorority house, had an erection visible through his leggings,” the suit says. “Other times, he has had a pillow in his lap.”
As evidenced by his Tinder profile, Langford is “sexually interested in women.” It was further stated in that Langford took photographs of the women while at a sorority slumber party, where he also is said to have made inappropriate comments.
“At a slumber party, Langford ‘repeatedly questioned the women about what vaginas look like, [and] breast cup size,’ and stared as one Plaintiff changed her clothes,” reads the appeal. “Langford also talked about his virginity and discussed at what age it would be appropriate for someone to have sex… And he stated that he would not leave one of the sorority’s sleepovers until after everyone fell asleep.”
Langford was also said to have taken pictures of female members “without their knowledge or consent.” Some of the women noted that they had “observed Langford writing detailed notes about [the students] and their statements and behavior.”
In May, a judge twice prohibited the women from suing anonymously, while stipulating that Langford’s identity should remain protected. Langford was referred to by the pseudonym “Terry Smith” and male pronouns in the legal documents. Six of the women then refiled the lawsuit under their own names, and are requesting that the court void Langford’s membership in KKG.
“It is really uncomfortable. Some of the girls have been sexually assaulted or sexually harassed. Some girls live in constant fear in our home,” one of the sisters, Hannah, told Megyn Kelly during an interview on her podcast.
Rather than addressing the privacy and safety concerns of the women in KKG, who had each paid $8,000 to live in the sorority house, “Kappa officials recommended that … they should quit Kappa Kappa Gamma entirely.”
In June, the sorority filed a motion to dismiss the suit, calling it a “frivolous” attempt to eject Langford for “their own political purposes.” According to the motion, the women suing were flinging “dehumanizing mud” in order to “bully Ms. Langford on the national stage.” The sorority invited the women to resign their membership “if a position of inclusion is too offensive for their personal values.”
In the motion, lawyers for Kappa Kappa Gamma attempted to depict the suit as an attempt by “a vocal minority” to impose their views on Langford and the rest of the sorority members.
“Perhaps the greatest wrongs in this case are not the ones Plaintiffs and their supporters imagine they have suffered, but the ones that they have inflicted through their conduct since filing the Complaint,” they wrote. “Regardless of personal views on the rights of transgender people, the cruelty that Plaintiffs and their supporters have shown towards Langford and anyone in Kappa who supports Langford is disturbing.”
The recent appeal against the suit’s dismissal, filed on behalf of the young women by Sylvia May Mailman of the Independent Women’s Law Center, the Law Office of John G. Knepper, Schaerr Jaffe LLP, and Cassie Craven of Longhorn Law firm, details several alleged violations of the sorority sisters’ rights, as well as KKG’s own policies.
“The question at the heart of this case is the definition of ‘woman,’ a term that Kappa has used since 1870 to prescribe membership, in Kappa’s governing documents,” the appeal states. “Using any conceivable tool of contractual interpretation, the term refers to biological females. And yet, the district court avoided this inevitable conclusion by applying the wrong law and ignoring the factual assertions in the complaint.”
It goes on to note that from 1870 to 2018, KKG defined “woman” to exclude “transgender women” and that any new definition may not be enacted without a KKG bylaw amendment.
Numerous examples are given of rules put forward by the sorority which use the term “woman,” with the attorneys maintaining that “‘woman’ is not an ambiguous term open to an evolving interpretation.”
KKG leaders who approved Langford’s membership have “subverted Kappa’s mission and governing documents by changing the definition of ‘woman’ without following the required processes.” Kappa President Mary Pat Rooney’s legal team has argued that Langford’s admission into the sorority was based on a 2015 position statement which asserts that KKG “is a single-gender organization comprised of women and individuals who identify as women.”
However, the women’s legal appeal points out that KKG can only change its membership criteria by amending its Bylaws, a process which requires a two-thirds majority approval vote by a Convention of board members. As a Convention to amend Bylaws to reflect the position statement was never held, the appeal states, Langford’s acceptance into KKG is a violation of accepted policies.
KKG leadership is also accused of using “coercive” tactics during the process of voting Langford into the organization in September 2022. After an initial anonymous vote conducted via Google poll failed to result in Langford’s acceptance into the sorority, Chapter leaders developed a second, non-anonymous voting system in which multiple sisters changed their votes because of “fear of reprisal.”
In addition to denying women anonymity, Wyoming chapter officials, after consultation with Kappa’s leadership, had told members that voting against Langford’s admission was evidence of “bigotry” that “is a basis for suspension or expulsion from the Sorority.”
Curiously, prior court documents also reveal that Langford was admitted to KKG despite not even meeting their basic academic eligibility requirements.
While KKG requires applicants to have a 2.7 Grade Point Average (GPA), Langford only had a 1.9 at the time he submitted his membership request, and was not on a grade probation. The legal complaint notes that this indicates Langford’s application was “evaluated using a different standard.”
In November, two longstanding alumni members of KKG revealed they had been expelled in an apparent retaliation for advocating that membership be restricted to females only. Patsy Levang and Cheryl Tuck-Smith had been members of the sorority for over 50 years, and had contributed to fundraising efforts for the organization.
Despite their long history of supporting KKG, Levang and Tuck-Smith were voted out by the sorority’s national leadership on November 9. Levang had been the past Kappa Kappa Gamma National Foundation President, while Tuck-Smith was an active contributor and organizer.
The women’s removal came after they had been vocally opposed to the admission of Langford to the KKG chapter at the University of Wyoming, and had supported a lawsuit launched by members of that sorority to have him removed.
Since news of the lawsuit first became widely circulated, Langford has received ample sympathetic coverage in mainstream media, with one MSNBC host labeling him “brave and unique.” In a recent profile by the Washington Post, Langford was given a platform to accuse the sorority sisters involved in the suit of lying while being compared to women who had historically been denied the right to a basic education.
115 notes
·
View notes
Something that SEEERIOUSLY isn’t talked about enough among Rodrigue fans is how Rodrigue (almost? or generally) always refers to Dimitri as “Your/His Highness” except in the moment that Dimitri’s life was at risk right in front of Rodrigue and Rodrigue shielded him with his own body.
Rodrigue is always respectful and aware of their stations, but none of that matters when Dimitri is almost killed. Rodrigue reacts emotionally without station in mind, forgetting to refer to him in an “appropriate” manner and reacting instead in a more intimate manner (i.e. using a person’s name instead of their title).
Most people wouldn’t dare to refer to their prince by their first name, but Rodrigue forgets all that the moment Dimtiri is in danger. He follows up that familial intimacy by calling Dimitri “my boy”. In a way it’s like Rodrigue's formalities are just forced expectations that are ingrained into him, because his actual instinct is to refer to Dimitri in a familial way. If he doesn’t have time to think about what he’s saying, it will be Dimitri’s name that he uses because that’s how he truly thinks of Dimitri.
He doesn’t solely view Dimitri as his prince. He views Dimitri as family, and in a setting where royalty exists, it’s so important to the relationship in question when that societal expectation is broken, simply because it tells you exactly what that character thinks of their royalty.
When royalty’s life is in danger, it would even make sense for people to hesitate because if they do anything, they might also be in danger and generally humans instinctually prioritize their own life (even if they do really want to step in to help). That typically is not the case with humans regarding loved ones, where that instinct instead changes to an instinct where they automatically step in to protect people dear to them - especially parents to their children. Parents - not just in humans but in most forms of life (cats, dogs, etc) - are extremely protective of their children and react without a second - even a first - thought, because it’s not a thought at all when they see their children in danger. It’s a base reaction.
Rodrigue wasn’t witnessing his prince being attacked. He was witnessing his son being attacked, and he reacted as a father would - not as a knight, a vassal or anyone under Dimitri’s station and how they would be expected to react to protect him. Dimitri didn’t have to be his blood son for him to react the same way a blood parent would. Dimitri wasn’t born to him but he was Rodrigue’s son all the same and he couldn’t accept his boy being harmed.
I love that his reaction is exactly the same as what Lambert would have done. I love that in that one moment when he didn’t have time to think about his word choice, such important stations meant absolutely nothing to him. I love that what was important to him was Dimitri the person, and not Dimitri the prince. I love that at the very end, he died knowing his boy was safe and alive. I love that, when he starts reusing “Your Highness”, it’s only after the immediate danger has passed and he has time to actually process his word choice again, because it really drives home how quickly and thoughtlessly he reacted to seeing Dimitri in danger when he dropped formalities to use his first name.
He also didn’t tell him to live for the people or live because he was a prince. He wanted Dimitri to remember to live for himself and likely died with the hope that those being his last words would be taken much more heavily and sincerely, and give Dimitri a lot to think about in regard to caring for himself as a person and not just seeing himself as a prince/future king, because Rodrigue also saw him as a person.
Not only did Rodrigue protect his son (which mind you must have been extremely important to him after already losing a son. Can you imagine how devastated he would be to lose another child? This time he saved a son from death, which he was unable to do previously and he wasn’t present to be able to even try), but he gave Dimitri the thing Dimitri desired the most from those he loved: he treated Dimitri like a regular person who needed to live his own life for himself, and in the single most critical moment to Rodrigue, forgot to use titles and formalities and openly expressed his true feelings just by using Dimitri’s name alone.
Dimitri never liked all those stuffy behaviors and titles. He just wanted to be a person. Rodrigue, his family, gave him that at Rodrigue’s very end, explicitly informing Dimitri that was how this man always thought of him just from that one moment of Rodrigue’s feelings slipping through. He was always keeping up appearances, but Dimitri was always just Dimitri to him.
Also, Rodrigue says “please tell me it wasn’t in vain”. Remember, Rodrigue’s son died in vain. Glenn didn’t actually get to protect Dimitri. Earlier, Rodrigue stated that Dimitri’s injuries left him on the verge of death. Glenn didn’t die protecting him. Glenn died in a tragedy. Nothing Glenn did that day that led to his death actually helped Dimitri survive. Dimitri survived because Gilbert found him in time.
Rodrigue knows that and doesn’t want another person dear to Dimitri to die a death that didn’t need to happen. He also doesn’t want it to be in vain because if it was, he would have died being unable to protect his son. Rodrigue “died for what he believed in”, but he died because he thoughtlessly, without hesitation, died to save his son. He believed in Dimitri, but he also believed Dimitri to be his child as much as Glenn and Felix ever were.
Even though Glenn did die in vain, he attempted to die keeping his best friend alive. He believed in his best friend, just like Lambert believed in his son to be able to saved if he ever went astray.
Before Rodrigue dies, he last thoughts are of Lambert, but also his promise to Lambert, which was about Dimtiri.
Rodrigue was always thinking of his family throughout the whole game (literally, he brings up Felix to Byleth regularly and brings up Glenn throughout the story as well), and that extended to Lambert and Dimtiri. At the very last, he literally died like he lived, and that was for his family.
48 notes
·
View notes