University of Wyoming Law Professor Melissa Alexander weighed in on the high-profile Kappa Kappa Gamma lawsuit which began in March and has since ignited significant debate over the definition of womanhood.
Last week, the identities of the six KKG plaintiffs were revealed after a judge denied them anonymity following two requests to proceed without revealing the names of the plaintiffs and a defendant.
In the plaintiffs’ statement, Langford is repeatedly referred to as a man with the pronouns he/him. Alexander stated that while misgendering in a statement is not illegal, it can be hurtful.
“I think that the heart of this case, is what does it mean to be a woman? The plaintiffs contend that biology and history determine what constitutes a woman, but many dictionaries define woman to include gender identity,” Alexander said.
“The plaintiffs have intentionally chosen to treat Miss Langford as a man and it would be equally unsurprising if the defendants were respecting Miss Langford’s choice to identify under female pronouns.”
Alexander referenced the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, a civil rights case in 2020 in which the court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects gay or transgender employees against discrimination.
“The Bostock case recognized that discriminating against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is discrimination on the basis of sex. And I would certainly argue that that case has at least some relevance,” said Alexander.
“There are private organizations that limit membership in ways that some of us may find offensive or undesirable, but because these decisions do not involve state action, there is a broader range for those private choices. In this case, the court will read the bylaws and other corporate documents to determine how the word woman should be understood in the context of those documents.”
“This is really a narrower case, because it is about the correct interpretation of Kappa Kappa Gamma’s bylaws and other corporate documents.”
The case garnered more attention once plaintiffs’ identities were publicized, as none of the six women were from the state of Wyoming.
“My guess is that the decision to use plaintiffs from out of state was driven by the desire to ensure subject matter jurisdiction in federal court. Although Wyoming is the Equality State, and it has a tradition of live and let live, some of the allegations in the complaint may run contrary,” said Alexander.
Alexander added that that the lawsuit sets a new precedent, and has the potential as
lawsuit could set a new precedent on other college campuses, and has the potential to spark similar cases.
“It wouldn’t be surprising because, as far as I know, this is an issue of first impression, something that courts have not previously spoken to,” she said.
