Initially, no. Because none of this was possible or even a thought in 1914, so I can only abide by our Founders original rules. If that was a thing back then, maybe it’d have been different. If we did allow it, although I’d initially be opposed to it, I’d eventually accept the person as a member and keep it moving.

But I couldn’t see myself dating a former dude tho. That, I would never do.

I've wondered the same thing! It's puzzling for sure!

Could it have been due to the murder( 2 decades ago) in Laramie of Matthew Shepard, a young gay man who was murdered and tied to a post in a field? That case got a lot of attention worldwide.

People throwing around “ignorant” or even worse… “bigoted” when they themselves are cherry picking feel-good snippets off the internet instead of real biology is peak irony. You can’t throw those words around while comparing chromosomes to skin pigment like they’re the same thing. That’s not science, that’s confusion with a certificate, lol. And then, having links doesn’t make her argument valid if the logic is rotten. Her post is so transparently shaky that it’s funny she thinks it’s a checkmate. :)

So, if your belief system can’t stand on its own facts, logic, or biology, and instead needs guilt trips, hashtags, or race comparisons to make people agree, then you’re not defending a fact. People will wrap a weak biological argument in guilt or fear like, “If you disagree, you’re a bigot” kind of thing. And because no one wants to be labeled a “bigot” they comply. Now you’re scared to say 2 + 2 = 4 because you’ll be called hateful.

So, basically you’re packaging confusion in emotional wrapping paper so people will “buy” it, not because it’s real, but because it feels too costly to reject.

Selling an idea with flashy slogans, pity stories, or fear of being labeled. Using buzzwords like “cis” or “gender spectrum” to make the idea sound scientific, when it’s really social branding. So “terms” like “cis” weren’t invented by biologists to describe reproductive function. They were coined to make “trans” sound normal and to reframe the conversation. If that makes sense.

And for the record? Talking about whether black women deserved bids in sororities was really dumb to begin with. They’re women — same chromosomes, same biology. And more melanin is because of basic geography. Real science. Race differences like skin tone are just evolutionary adaptations to sun exposure, not different species or different biological sexes. So comparing that to crossing sex categories is nonsense. Honestly? It should’ve never been an “agenda item.” Ever. It was ignorance then, and using it to prop up gender confusion now is still ignorance, just repackaged.

As a note, cis and trans as prefixes viewed as opposites goes back centuries as a concept in Chemistry. (for example) two Carbons linked by a double bond one of which has a Hydrogen and a Chlorine and the other a Hydrogen and a Fluorine exist in two forms. Cis, where the Chlorine and Flourine are on the same side of the carbon bond and trans where they are across from each other.

True, and good point. But in chemistry, “cis” and “trans” describe the position of atoms or groups across a double bond. They’re valid, measurable structural configurations. No one is disputing that. But that’s exactly my point. So, in chemistry, “cis” and “trans” have a physical basis. You can observe them with spectroscopy or a microscope. They’re not subjective labels, they describe a molecule’s geometry.

So like, in human biology, “cis” is ideological, not structural. No biologist ever needed “cis” to describe normal sexual reproduction. The terms “male” and “female” have worked fine for centuries because they actually map onto our reproductive system, chromosomes, and gametes. “Cisgender” didn’t come from embryology or genetics, it came from gender theory. Its purpose is to reframe normal biological categories as just one version of an identity spectrum, so “trans” feels equally original. But unlike cis/trans isomers, a man identifying as a woman doesn’t physically flip chromosomes the way a double bond flips atoms. It’s not structural, it’s social.

So yeah, “cis/trans” in chemistry is real, observable, and testable. “Cis/trans” in sex categories is marketing. One is about measurable bonds, while the other is about feelings. Huge difference.

But I appreciate you bringing up the chemistry, it actually proves my point.

"Cis" is a Latin prefix or word which means "on the same side". So, in this context, cisgender, cisman, and ciswoman are meant to describe individuals whose gender identity matches their biological sex. So, if you were born a biological female, and you identify as a female, then the term now given is "ciswoman".

I would need you to break your post down CG so I can understand it. I’m also not understanding how naraht is proving your point. Because of that, I read naraht’s post 4 times and your post 6 times and what I’m getting out of what you’re trying to say is what I changed your post to. Am I right?

You see how confusing that is? It’s bullshit, if you ask me.

Exactly.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
THANK YOU! Finally somebody over here with some common sense.

Rejected REAL women and then turn around and make that one of the reasons to not reject a 6’ 2” 275 lb weirdo. Makes ZERO sense!

In chemistry, “cis/trans” means a real, physical flip you can see under a microscope. In gender talk, “cis” is just a social label, no physical flip, no real structure.

So when naraht brings up chemistry, it shows the word only makes sense when it describes a real structure, which gender identity doesn’t have. That’s why it proves my point.

Real science vs. made up marketing.

lol
Yes. They’re real science terms repurposed so ideological fluff pretends to be biological fact. But it’s pretty much rhetorical camouflage.

Agreed!

Doubly agreed!

Words from the son of an Alpha Man Lol! I’m messing with you PB. I agree. What do you mean it’s not about the facts though? I thought CG was over here kickin scientific facts and knowledge. For real.

I hear you. Now I have a complete understanding of why back in the day when folks on here would reply to a post of yours with something you didn’t agree with, you’d always say “oh ok” or not reply at all LOL

For real though, those hidden messages is why I struggle to read the Bible. You must read it a lot.

I'm just confused as to why you think I support you on this. I'm pointing out that it isn't a made up term and the use of cis as the opposite isn't special to sexual identity. I have a non-binary child who let my wife and I know at age 20. (Has *really* early male pattern baldness which as a gender marker tends to affect things as it would from a nb who is a D breast size, however I know someone for who that is true as well.

Main reason that I haven't chimed in otherwise with a position on this is that it doesn't affect my fraternity since we aren't social and as such admitted both women and men in the 1970s. I honestly think having a fraternity where the situation of having brothers able to date each other *and* working through which students can be admitted 50 years ago tends to make the group in general more liberal on the topic. (the first out of the closet homosexual I ever met was my big brother as a Pledge)

Okay, so….. I get that you weren’t “supporting me”, and I didn’t say you were. I said your chemistry example actually makes my point clearer. And then you’re like… “I’m not taking a position” or something like that, which is nonsense, because you did take a position by clarifying you don’t support my point. So, I’m not twisting your words, I’m telling you how they land. That’s what you’re not getting, naraht.

Yes, “cis” as a prefix isn’t made up, and no one’s arguing Latin roots don’t exist. But in chemistry, “cis/trans” means you can physically verify a structural flip. Spectroscopy, molecular geometry…. you can test it. It’s measurable.

In gender talk, the label does not describe a structural shift. I mean, nobody flips chromosomes, gametes, or reproductive function like a molecule flips across a bond. The prefix is real, the flip is ideological. Big difference.

And I respect that this is personal for your family, I really do. But compassion and clarity don’t cancel each other out. One doesn’t rewrite the other.

Latin prefix or not, the biology stays the same. That was my point, and it still is.

CG got more boomerangs than Australia. You say one thing sideways, next thing you know you get slapped by your own words. Folks up in here flexing chemistry prefixes and got handed a molecular CG slap down LMAO!

On that note, I just looked up Phi Sigma, and it says to be a member you gotta major in biological sciences (biology, zoology, ecology, genetics, shit like that.), “be in the top academic tier, be invited or apply and get accepted based on your grades, research, or professional standing” - basically, in short, you gotta have a high ass GPA in science.

Knowing that, I see Phi Sigma Bio Sci Honor Society in a siggy, I’m not arguing with that person about science LOL.

I dunno, Phrozen. I mean, based on some others posts, I’m like, SO confused because if sex categories are as structurally flexible as it’s being implied, what test changes someone’s chromosomes? And I’m also genuinely curious, if it’s structural, it should be measurable, right?

And then like, if “cis/trans” means the same thing for gender as it does in chemistry, where’s the spectroscopy test for a structural gender flip? And then, if there isn’t one, what exactly is “flipping” besides the label?

So if, to you, chromosomes determine, is it the existence of a Y chromosome that determines gender regardless of what you can see about the person? If the cells have a Y chromosome, but Breasts, a Vagina and no facial hair, that's a guy, right? Even if they by inspection with the naked eye, the child looks female, once the Chromosomes have been looked at, that's a boy?

Part of the reasons that cis/trans in sexual characteristics is so complicated is that instead of measuring one thing, thirty or more are measured. Do they normally line up in 97% (more or less) of the population, sure. But the 3% exists.

And *that* is complete ignoring the Psychology...

The problem is flipping back and forth between biological sex and gender. This is from the Yale School of Medicine web site.

In 2001, a committee convened by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a nonprofit think tank that took on issues of importance to the national health, addressed the question of whether it mattered to study the biology of women as well as men.

The IOM, now embedded within the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), concluded there was more than sufficient evidence that, beyond reproductive biology, there were major differences in the biology of women and men that greatly affected their health and influenced treatment and prevention strategies.

Importantly, the committee emphasized that neither the health of women nor men is simply a product of biology but is also influenced by sociocultural and psychological experience. To differentiate between these broad areas of investigation, the members created working definitions of “sex” — when referring to biology — and “gender” — when referring to self-representation influenced by social, cultural, and personal experience.

The committee advised that scientists use these definitions in the following ways:

In the study of human subjects, the term sex should be used as a classification, generally as male or female, according to the reproductive organs and functions that derive from the chromosomal complement [generally XX for female and XY for male].
In the study of human subjects, the term gender should be used to refer to a person's self-representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions on the basis of the individual's gender presentation.
In most studies of nonhuman animals, the term sex should be used.
These working definitions were a good start in recognizing the value of studying sex and gender and their interactions, yet they were always meant to evolve. Now, we are learning more about ourselves and so must adapt our terminology to be inclusive, respectful, and more accurate.

For example, while most people are born biologically female or male, rare biological syndromes can result in genital ambiguity. Or a resistance to a sex hormone can result in traits typical of the opposite biological sex.

Moreover, while an individual’s internal sense of gender can be female or male, some people identify as nonbinary — neither female nor male. Other individuals can identify as a gender that is the same as (cisgender) or different from (transgender) the one assigned at birth. These terms are separate from an individual’s sexual orientation, which describes a person’s emotional, romantic and/or physical attachments (such as straight, lesbian, gay, asexual, bisexual, and more).

The reality is, gender is 100% a social construct we have MADE UP. It's not based on anything scientific at all. There is no reason to dress boys in blue and girls in pink, except that society decided it should be that way. That wasn't even true until after World War II.

Similarly, boys play with trucks and play sports and girls do crafts and play with dolls. It's all total BS. Boys who are too "feminine" in their manerisms, dress, or interests were labeled "sissies" when I was school age. Girls who played sports and got dirty and liked science and math were "tomboys". It has ZERO to do with biology. It's all about what society has decided is proper "boy" and "girl" behavior. It includes all the insane double standards too- like women shouldn't be promiscuous but men are expected to "sow their wild oats" before settling down. Or that women shouldn't be engineers, doctors, and lawyers and men shouldn't be nurses or teachers. It's all made up. It's fake.

You know how many times any of my sisters saw me in any stage of undress at all? Zero. Never. Never ever ever happened. Why and how would it ever happen? What is the threat of someone who feels more like a woman than a man and is interested in the things sororities do versus the things fraternities do being a member of a sorority? Especially if they are taking hormones to help them transition physically.

I've never been afraid of any transgender women. Of all the people I know who have been raped, the rapist has never been a transgender woman. It's always been a cisgender man. That's who I'm afraid of.

First, that “to you” part is really cute, but chromosomes being the blueprint for sex isn’t a personal opinion, it’s biology 101. Doctors don’t say, “What do you feel like today?” They run a karyotype if there’s an actual medical anomaly.

Second, you’re describing real disorders of sexual development, which exist, yes. But you just proved my point again. When the visible anatomy doesn’t line up, guess what? They look at the chromosomes to figure it out. Because the blueprint doesn’t lie.

So you’re basically saying, “If a rare glitch happens, does that mean the whole blueprint is flexible?” No. A glitch doesn’t rewrite the design for the other 97%.

And tossing in “psychology” at the end doesn’t change chromosomes either. Feelings can’t swap a Y for an X.

So “to you”? Nope. It’s not to me. It’s just how DNA works.

Hope that clears up the confusion.

Unfortunately, I have known of several men who represented themselves as transgender women to get into a women's restroom or other place and then do something awful. The first case I know of was a town over ten years ago.

I taught at a college in the same town after that and a man very badly dressed as a woman strolled into the bathroom (I was in there). He stood there for a moment and moved towards my ESOL students and they screamed and ran out. I called the cops, but about half never came back to class again.

Yep, that’s exactly what happens when people swap biological fact for open-ended “feelings”.

This right here is just straight up weirdo shit. Whole blueprint doesn’t lie but folks out here trying to scribble over it with crayons.

It sure is. We called my supervisor and she said we had to respect his right to be there so we wouldn't hurt his feelings. :mad: Therefore after that, the remaining women and I went to a bathroom on the other side of campus.

The men in class offered to stand guard outside the bathroom and beat the crap out of him if he appeared.

LMAO! St. Nick with a rack.

I’m going to start identifying myself as “mute” around those weirdos. For real. That means don’t bring your weird ass over here and say shit to me.

You do you!

Oh trust me, I do me just fine. I just don’t do 70 year old Claus with a C-cup. But hey, you do your weird ass far away from me.

So, you don’t have to treat anyone like trash, but you also don’t owe anyone agreement with something you don’t believe in, Phrozen. I mean, you can nod, give a polite wave, and move on. Right? Being civil doesn’t mean you have to pretend biology bends, that’s just called having clear, healthy boundaries. Know what I mean?

Yep. I didn’t actually believe this happened, until I experienced it in some of the social services settings I’ve worked in.

No one is saying “all trans people are predators” but biological men who may or may not be transgender do put themselves in women’s personal spaces for nefarious reasons. Maybe 1 out of 100, but it’s the one who has really bad intentions and can create dangerous situations. No one would (to use some GC lingo) “perp” as a trans person to infiltrate women-only spaces who was not seriously disturbed.

When it’s a biological male who is, let’s say…fully functioning…women’s safety is paramount. Particularly considering the women in question most likely already have trauma issues and are most likely displaced and in the care of social services due at least in part to those issues.

It does suck for the majority of trans people who can be in the situation and handle themselves appropriately…getting lumped in with people who are just sex predators. Conversely, the majority of trans people I’ve encountered professionally have been in this group.

Not to throw a wrench into the works......but I work with convicted criminals for a living. Not "all", but a number of male rapists will become transgender females later.

We do have a decent number of transgender women housed in our male prisons. A couple of years ago, I started to notice that the transgender inmates seemed to have a higher incidence of being sex offenders, namely rapists. Looking at their booking photos over the years, they were male-appearing at first and then, over time, transitioned to being transgender women while in prison.

I was curious to see in verifiable data what the actual percentage is vs transgender inmates who are not sex offenders. I am able to pull a report for how many transgender inmates we have and I am able to pull a report for how many sex offenders we have....but I am not able to pull a report for transgender inmates who are sex offenders. I would have to look each one up manually - that would be a big project and it's not a part of my daily job duties, thus not a super great use of my employer's time.

I find this interesting from an academic, non-political viewpoint. It would be interesting to examine if some male rapists are possibly doing so because they feel "different" inside and they are taking it out on females, in essence, because they hate themselves for feeling that way.

But please don't assume that a male rapist means that he's definitely heterosexual and non-transgender. I was quite intrigued when I started to put two and two together........

So existance of Y chromosome determines it for you, not what you can see externally, regardless of whether that infant looks like most babies with XX.

You keep asking the same question but skipping the answer. If the outside doesn’t match, doctors don’t just guess, they run a karyotype because chromosomes settle what the anatomy can’t.

That’s not my rule, that’s medicine. You’re proving my point every time you circle back, lol.

I’m not going to let you pretend you’re discovering new ground when you’re just going in circles. :)

Karyotypes are only run if there is some reason to. If the body looks "Female Normal", why run a Karyotype that would show that there is a Y?

:confused:…. Umm.. when you do look, it’s the final answer. The blueprint settles the mismatch. And when you don’t look, you’re just assuming the blueprint matches the appearance, so you’re still trusting the blueprint. So you’re admitting the blueprint matters so much you only test when you suspect it might not match — meaning the blueprint’s the standard. So, you just proved my point… again.

You’re not throwing me off, naraht, you’re just proving my point on repeat, lol. It’s like, you keep dressing the same question in new outfits.

LMAO! I hollered.

I'm feeling a bit under the weather so hope I can express myself clearly. A while back there was a very long post about the KKG/Wyoming situation. Comments were ultimately turned off because some comments became truly hateful.

Included in that post was a link to a PDF about Kappa's rules about Transgender members living in one of their chapter houses. These included giving a Tran's member her own room in the house if a Single Room was available. If not, the Trans Sister had the right to occupy a double room and the chapter would pay the rent for the empty bed.

I was a bit flabbergasted at the time about why they were bending over backwards to help Trans members live in the house at the exclusion of another Sister who might have wanted that empty bed?

Do any Sororities currently have Trans members living in a chapter house? While this is not the same issue, do Sororities allow gay women who are sexual partners to live together as roommates? What happens if this couple breaks up, but still have to occupy the same room because there is no place else to live. Do we allow our gay Sisters to bring home a sexual partner for the night, when we don't allow our straight Sisters to bring a guy up to the second floor of the house, ever? There is just so much more nuance to these things when I was a Collegian.