The Kappa Kappa Gamma ΚΚΓ "sorority" and sisterhood



Laura Ingraham

Megyn Kelly 

I don't see anything wrong with what that judge decided.
It doesn't seem like a federal case to decide who can join a sorority.

But I am amazed by Kappa Kappa Gamma ΚΚΓ allowing a biological male to join the sorority.
I thought sororities were restricted to real women, not to anyone who thinks they are a woman.

Maybe they were afraid of being sued for discriminating against so-called transgenders?

As they say, there's enough guilt to go around for this situation.
But I think a big part of the blame must go to the psychologists and  
psychiatrists, when they declared that for people of one unambiguous biological sex who wanted to be another sex, 
that their problem was with their bodies, not their minds.


Now let's look at how the transgenderism promoting Washington Post reported this story:


Could WP look at this from the point of view of the real women (not just someone who thinks they are, or wants to be a woman)?
Absolutely not.
The story is written from the POV of the person who is bothering real women.


The utter absurdity of "assigned at birth"

Conider this sentence that appeared recently at CNN:

"People who are assigned male at birth have an X and a Y chromosome, 
while those assigned female at birth have two X chromosomes."


What a bizarre redefinition of basic terms.
Up until recent years (I'm not sure when the linguistic transition occurred), 
that sentence would have been written more simply and clearly as:

"Men have an X and a Y chromosome, 
while women have two X chromosomes."

Pretty simple, right?

What's wrong with that?

Also, note that the simpler formulation relies on clear and undisputed science.
Unlike what comes from those dodos who can't tell 
the difference in meaning between the words "assign" and "recognize."

You notice, by the way, that this whole "transgenderism" thing is jacking up the income to the medical community.
More surgeries, more drugs, more income.
Just what the doctors love.
And all totally avoidable.
If only doctors, journalists, and academics wouldn't chase the latest wokeism.

I think it is very positive that molecular geneticists have been able to sequence the Y chromosome.
That is real science.
In contrast to the politics and ideology that underlies "gender studies".

What all this demonstrates is that 
"transgenderism" is the denial of reality, 
aided and abetted by a bizarre, weird ideology and some profiteers.


A contradiction at Rice?

Here are some excerpts from an interview:

Rice University President Reginald DesRoches said:
<blockquote>it’s been a very, very busy year, uh, in terms of just the change that I’m trying to embark upon at Rice, you know, bringing in a whole new leadership team, hiring nine new vice presidents out of 12 in a period of a year. 
[I became] president at one of the best institutions in the world</blockquote>

Call me mystified.
If Rice was "one of the best institutions in the world", 
then why did he feel the need to
"[bring] in a whole new leadership team"?
Does it occur to him that the old leadership team might have been a vital part of what made Rice "one of the best institutions in the world"?
And that the new leadership team might not be able to maintain that level of excellence?

From later in the interview:

<blockquote>Eddie Robinson: If you can, if you, if you don’t mind, if you can kind of go through the challenges of your first year.

Reginald DesRoches: Yeah. I mean, obviously one of the challenges is building a new team, right? 
So I’m in the process of 
hiring all new leaders and 
getting them in and 
getting them all on the same page and 
accustomed to the Rice culture, um, 
developing a strategic vision for the university. 
we have a new, a new team on board. 
We have all the new leadership. </blockquote>

Again, the question comes:
"If Rice was so outstanding when he came in, 
why did he feel the need to "build a new team"?


Twenty million. For what?

We are told that foreign entities, businesses or private individuals (the one-time wife of a mayor Moscow!) paid the Biden family or entities they controlled over $20 million.
The obvious question is: For what?
And the obvious answer is: For what those foreign entities wanted the Bidens to do.
Remember the age-old adage, playing off The Golden Rule, "He who has the gold makes the rules."

Now, the Democrats have yet to provide a reasonable answer to that question.
Rather, their tactic, which we have seen them employ over and over again, is to change the subject.
"Let's not talk about Biden.
Let's just talk about Trump."
Or in a variant, they will accuse people trying to talk about Biden of being the ones who are changing the subject.

Anyhow, filibuster as they might, has anyone heard Democrats come up with a good answer to that question?


(On the Moscow mayor claim, see e.g.
https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_e879bcfe-4b2a-4b4a-a823-8c6d512c4e5e .
See also 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yelena_Baturina )