A Victory for Sororities: Education Department Rules Sororities Are for Women Only

[naraht]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

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...

[AGDee]

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.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by naraht

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...

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.

[carnation]

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.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by carnation

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”.

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by carnation

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.

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

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.

[carnation]

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. 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.

[PrettyBoy]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

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
.

Yeah, I’ll reply with either “ok” or no response at all. Not every battle needs a reply, sometimes silence is wisdom. Some people have eyes but can’t see and ears but don’t hear. That’s why you can hand them truth all day, but they’ll stay blind.

Speaking of weird, there’s this dude who comes into the same Starbucks I hit on my way to work here. He’s an older guy, about 65-70. He’s got a white beard and mustache, kind of like Santa Claus or whatnot, but he has women’s breasts — large breasts. He also wears women’s clothes. He was normal at first, was gone for a minute, then came back with breasts. I wouldn’t even have a conversation with somebody like that.

I order online and grab my coffee and go, normally. But it was a small line this time. He spoke (tried to start a conversation), and I just gave him a halfway up quick wave, grabbed my coffee and left. I’m not having a conversation with somebody like that. Something has got to be off upstairs. These folks need help.

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by PrettyBoy

Yeah, I’ll reply with either “ok” or no response at all. Not every battle needs a reply, sometimes silence is wisdom. Some people have eyes but can’t see and ears but don’t hear. That’s why you can hand them truth all day, but they’ll stay blind.

Speaking of weird, there’s this dude who comes into the same Starbucks I hit on my way to work here. He’s an older guy, about 65-70. He’s got a white beard and mustache, kind of like Santa Claus or whatnot, but he has women’s breasts — large breasts. He also wears women’s clothes. He was normal at first, was gone for a minute, then came back with breasts. I wouldn’t even have a conversation with somebody like that.

I order online and grab my coffee and go, normally. But it was a small line this time. He spoke (tried to start a conversation), and I just gave him a halfway up quick wave, grabbed my coffee and left. I’m not having a conversation with somebody like that. Something has got to be off upstairs. These folks need help.

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.

[jolene]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

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!

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by jolene

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.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

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.

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?

[*winter*]

Originally Posted by carnation

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. 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.

[navane]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

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........

[naraht]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

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.

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.