Talk:List of LGBT and LGBT-friendly fraternities and sororities/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of LGBT and LGBT-friendly fraternities and sororities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090614044649/http://sites.dlp.org:80/sites/national/about/ to http://sites.dlp.org/sites/national/about/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Fraternities and sororities which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Untitled comment
Original information (apparently) taken from greekopedia.com.

I've stated that the list covers LGBT and LGBT-friendly, as I can't tell if all the societies actively exclude non-LGBT members. Some would appear to be exclusively LGBT oriented, but ones such as 'Kappa Psi Kappa' don't state a policy anywhere obvious - if anyone knows different, feel free to correct the description :-) CultureDrone (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No source ... just first hand experience ...
I am a transwoman and I was initiated into Delta Xi Phi Multicultural Sorority, Inc.. I even had to go through Nationals--because my uni was/is being a jerk--and Nationals wrote my uni saying they would accept any female identified individuals. I've written about it in my blog, but I don't know if that would be an acceptable "source". We have initiated a total of two out transwomen (including me) ... and there are many lesbian and bi identified sisters. Nymunariya (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We do need something in a reliable source; blogs aren't reliable, and especially not first-hand/original-research blogs. —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

What is an aggressive lesbian?
Is this a term that is used commonly? I've never heard of this. I'm wondering if we should describe that particular organization differently (or at least explain what that means) I get the image of lesbians who start bar brawls or something. Bali88 (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

List overhaul
I've cited where each fraternity or sorority on the list identifies as LGBT or LGBT-friendly. The following I could not verify but left on the list since they have an article on Wikipedia: The following have been removed from the list: Of course, if anybody has sources that will prove the status of the organizations with respect to notability or membership on the list, feel free to discuss it here, or be bold and add them to the list. —C.Fred (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC), revised 00:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Kappa Psi Kappa: Although the article mentions their diversity, there's nothing on their website I can find to back up the assertion. Keeping listed but with request for citation.
 * Sigma Nu Beta: No article, and the only web presence is a MySpace page. They do not appear to meet the criteria for notability. The MySpace page does identify the group as for "women of masculinity."
 * Phi Alpha Nu — While it is a fraternity for dominant lesbians, it is a "non-collegiate yet education based" group. The list definition only encompasses undergraduate collegiate fraternities.
 * Chi Lambda Theta — fraternity for masculine, butch, and stud women. They identify as non-collegiate on their MySpace, which is their only web presence. The Independent Florida Alligator, however, notes thay have a chapter at the University of Florida. However, with a single chapter only, this does not meet WP:N.
 * Gamma Mu Phi- fraternity. Their website is a dead link. Their Facebook info says nothing. The Iota chapter's MySpace page identifies the organization as for homosexual, bisexual and affirming men. In the absence of evidence of multiple chapters, fails WP:N.
 * Alpha Phi Omega – fraternity. While they have opened their ranks to women and men, there is nothing particularly noted in the organization about their stance toward LGBT members. No evidence of meeting the qualifications for inclusion. Edit: orientation may be one of the criteria that their membership policies forbid excluding people based on. I don't have a copy of that policy or a source to verify it (yet).
 * Eta Iota Mu - Fraternity for stud/dominant lesbian women. Non-collegiate per Unity Mississippi. Their MySpace profile, at least not the public portion, does not identify them as LGBT or collegiate.
 * Eta Epsilon Gamma - Sorority for feminine lesbian women. Non-collegiate per Unity Mississippi. Not collegiate per their Facebook or MySpace profiles.
 * Kappa Omega Phi – sorority. Multicultural, but nothing specifically regarding LGBT on their web page. While I did not consider this in evaluating whether to include them on the list, I did note that their chant mentions "your man," which is a heterosexual bent to the words.

I also removed the following today: Phi Nu Kappa – sorority for feminine women of either LGBT community or straight bonded together in a true sisterhood.. Per that site, it's non-collegiate, and the chapters do not correspond to colleges or universities. —C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, I'm a member of Delta Lambda Psi, a co-ed LBGTQ fraternity at the University of California Santa Cruz. Here's our website. http://sites.google.com/site/ucscdlp/home How do we get added to this page? -Angie (angiewoot@gmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.59.242 (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This group is now included on this list and in Wikipedia under its new name Theta Pi Sigma Rublamb (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed rename/change to List of LGBT fraternities and sororities
, After the addition and reversion (and readdition) of Alpha Phi Omega (Which I believe is no different than many other organizations today in that regard), I'd like to propose that given that LGBT-friendly has become both common and undefinable and as such the article should be renamed and the article limited to those where LGBT status and sexuality is a significant part of the purpose and/or membership qualifications of the organization.Naraht (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Just deleting the entire friendly section is one perfectly valid option. That is an option that will likely incense any group that has self-identified as friendly for any length of time. Below I have attempted to initiate a discussion to build criteria for what exactly friendly should mean. It is possible that the term is currently undefinable and thus deleting the entire section is inevitable. I feel like attempting to define friendly is worth a shot, and if that goes nowhere useful we can always resort to the delete the section option. Abel (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Friendly
Gay-friendly defines friendly (in this context) as, "Gay-friendly are the places, policies, people or institutions that are open and welcoming to gay people (to include all members of the LGBTQ community) to create an environment that is supportive of gay people and their relationships, respectful of all people, treat all people equally, and are non-judgmental." The rub comes from the fact that in our ultra-litigious world, all groups have issued public statements about how they do not discriminate, yet those statements are obviously not all equally true. Criteria for what makes an organization "open and welcoming" seem to be in order. Thing is, lots of organizations who are open and welcoming do not shout from the rooftops about how open and welcoming they are, they just act open and welcoming so measuring this is not going to be easy. Abel (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The question is how a National Organization can fulfill that. I believe that simply a quote from the National bylaws that a group is open to all students is nowhere near a suitable reference for that.Naraht (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine. What is? Abel (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And *that* is why I've made the proposal. In fact for Alpha Phi Omega, Sexual Orientation (which was the more normal term in the 1990s) was proposed to be added to the bylaws, but the reaction was in the other direction, getting rid of *all* of the things that we didn't descriminate on (race, gender, veterans status, etc.) So in that regard, I think a group which actually includes Sexual Orientation (or Gender Identity or similar) would actually be *more* suitable for the list. It does of course lead to the question as to whether a group that states that it is open to all men or all chemistry majors is any more friendly than one that is open to all students. In my opinion, APO is fairly friendly, *but* the few things that I could point to on a national level aren't documented anywhere.Naraht (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That is great but does not answer my question. I am not asking "Is Alpha Phi Omega friendly in your opinion," I am asking "what makes any organization friendly?" Abel (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Disclaimer: because the text in question is in the "Organizations for men" section, I am using male pronouns. This could obviously extend to all sections in the article.
 * Looking strictly at sexual orientation, I don't think that the list of examples is appropriate. The problem is that any organization not on the list could be incorrectly inferred to be unwelcoming of gay men just because they aren't enumerated. I do think the general statement that "many national fraternities have specific provisions in their non-discrimination policies that are inclusive of gay men but are not exclusively marketed to the gay community" should remain. I would only list a specific fraternity if it were involved in a watershed court decision about gay members. I might list an organization that was staunchly and vocally opposed to it—and if we had lots of sources about the policy.
 * There is a different issue with transgender men, especially since most fraternities and sororities operate as single-gender organizations. As a result, I do think that a fraternity that allows transgender men to join should be listed—again, provided it can be reliably sourced—because such inclusion is notable under current conditions.
 * Coming back to the question of what makes an organization friendly, I think it's hard to measure that. Is a statement from national enough? A clause in the bylaws? Some minimum level of gay membership? I think it's easier to define and also encyclopedic to identify organizations that are transgender-friendly or open to transgender members. —C.Fred (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. A press release or bylaw mention is verifiable. Granted, two organizations that both say open on paper may very well not be equally open, but at least those are verifiable. Level of LGBTQ membership will never work. Organizations would have to ask and record members, which would be a massive violation of privacy. Abel (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Scope reduction?
Should this list be scaled back to those fraternities and sororities that specifically identify as LGBT-related?

Lists should have finite criteria for membership. LGBT societies would be easy to define. LGBT-friendy is harder. What constitutes "friendly"? Is tolerance of LGBT members sufficient, or is a national policy on acceptance required? —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Long time since your post and things have changed. There are more friendly orgs. I agree that a tighter focus would be of greater use Rublamb (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)