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

[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.

[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.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by naraht

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.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

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?

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by naraht

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?

…. 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.

[Phrozen Sands]

I’m still over here trippin that (according to Belle) black folks are “equal” to a weirdo asking for acceptance into a predominantly white GLO, as if they’re the “standard”.

[33girl]

I just tried that link in the other thread and it didn't work.

Also gay couples have been roommates and dormmates since the dawn of time. They just didn't talk about it.

[Zach]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

I’m still over here trippin that (according to Belle) black folks are “equal” to a weirdo asking for acceptance into a predominantly white GLO, as if they’re the “standard”.

But are they really the standard? The traditional?