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

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

Wtf are you talking about? So let me get this straight. You’re out here comparing black women to “exceptions” in biology? For real? You act like being black is some medical anomaly that complicates the blueprint. Black people aren’t biological curveballs, we’re normal human beings with normal chromosomes and normal reproductive parts with more melanin. Race never made anyone’s sex ambiguous. So using blackness as a stand in for rare intersex conditions is not only ignorant as f*ck, it’s borderline offensive. Do you even hear yourself?

I knew race was going to come out. I just knew somebody was going to pull it out of their ass as a comparison. If anybody is the bigot, you are. For real.

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.

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

CG, I forgot to ask you what you mean by “marketing”. What’s that got to do with anything?

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.

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

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.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

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.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

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.

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!

[naraht]

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.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by naraht

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.

[PrettyBoy]

I’ve been reading all this back and forth (myself included) confusion, and that’s exactly what it is, confusion. You know, the older I get, the clearer it is that trying to argue some people out of confusion is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. It won’t stick, because the truth is, it’s not just about facts.

The Bible tells us “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace” (1 Corinthians 14:33). But the enemy is the master of confusion, and that confusion spreads when people reject truth for feelings.

Scripture also says, “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13). The world will keep getting darker. That’s not pessimism, that’s prophecy. And we can’t stop prophecy any more than a man can change his chromosomes from XY to XX and become a woman, or vice versa.

So I gotta stop wasting my breath trying to fix what’s already written. I just stand firm, speak truth with compassion, and stay clear minded enough to see what’s real and what’s just confusion in a costume.

Y’all have at it. 👍🏽

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by PrettyBoy

I’ve been reading all this back and forth (myself included) confusion, and that’s exactly what it is, confusion. You know, the older I get, the clearer it is that trying to argue some people out of confusion is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. It won’t stick, because the truth is, it’s not just about facts.

The Bible tells us “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace” (1 Corinthians 14:33). But the enemy is the master of confusion, and that confusion spreads when people reject truth for feelings.

Scripture also says, “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13). The world will keep getting darker. That’s not pessimism, that’s prophecy. And we can’t stop prophecy any more than a man can change his chromosomes from XY to XX and become a woman, or vice versa.

So I gotta stop wasting my breath trying to fix what’s already written. I just stand firm, speak truth with compassion, and stay clear minded enough to see what’s real and what’s just confusion in a costume.

Y’all have at it. 👍🏽

Agreed!

[carnation]

Originally Posted by honeychile

Agreed!

Doubly agreed!

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by PrettyBoy

I’ve been reading all this back and forth (myself included) confusion, and that’s exactly what it is, confusion. You know, the older I get, the clearer it is that trying to argue some people out of confusion is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. It won’t stick, because the truth is, it’s not just about facts.

The Bible tells us “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace” (1 Corinthians 14:33). But the enemy is the master of confusion, and that confusion spreads when people reject truth for feelings.

Scripture also says, “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13). The world will keep getting darker. That’s not pessimism, that’s prophecy. And we can’t stop prophecy any more than a man can change his chromosomes from XY to XX and become a woman, or vice versa.

So I gotta stop wasting my breath trying to fix what’s already written. I just stand firm, speak truth with compassion, and stay clear minded enough to see what’s real and what’s just confusion in a costume.

Y’all have at it. ����

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.

[PrettyBoy]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

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.

Right, but the debates about chromosomes, biology, or logic don’t work for some people, because the problem isn’t a lack of information. The real problem is spiritual blindness and confusion. It’s a heart issue, not just a brain issue. Some people know the facts but don’t want them, because accepting reality would mean giving up the comforting lie that feelings override truth.

The Bible says “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…” (Romans 1:22). Meaning people can have facts in front of them but reject the truth for their own desires.

2 Timothy 4:3 says “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.” That means people want voices that affirm the confusion, not voices that call it out.

So yeah, CG is putting real knowledge out there, no sugar coating, and I stand with her 100% on that. But you can see it goes in one ear and right out the other for some folks. She can show people chromosomes, science, logic, biology, but if they’re committed to an ideology that feels good, they’ll ignore all of what she said.

The root is spiritual deception, and only truth plus discernment can fix that, not just throwing more data at them. You can’t debate someone out of a confusion they’re spiritually clinging to.

Facts don’t change a heart that wants the lie, brother.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

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.

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)

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by naraht

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.

[Phrozen Sands]

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.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

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?

[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.