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

[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.

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by PrettyBoy

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.

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.

[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.

[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...

[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.