[X] My Assistant

It might seem like an odd question, but the divorce rate for lesbian marriages is double that of of gay marriages in every single country. Its also almost double the rate for hetorsexual marriages.

Lesbian marriages with children are four times as likely to divorce compared to Hetro and gay marriages.

In Florida, Lesbians had to go to court to demand the right for same sex divorce in 2015.

I just find it strange.


From one Lesbian friend, she said its because women want to get married but with a smaller dating pool its harder to find the perfect partner.

However, its pretty hard to find the perfect partner in any relationship.

the divorce rate for lesbian marriages is double that of of gay marriages

she said its because women want to get married but with a smaller dating pool its harder to find the perfect partner

Many lesbians live in their own special subculture(s) when it comes to dating and forming families. Some of these subcultures may have surprisingly strict sets of de facto rules when it comes to values. And, with the exception of the largest cities, the dating pools are indeed small if the individual does not wish to do a lot of traveling.

I would present the following questions:

1. Do male homosexuals divorce a lot less because they also marry a lot less? My understanding is that within the gay subculture, there is little peer pressure to form long-term relationships, co-habit, and raise children together. Because of this, it could be that a typical gay couple marries if and when the relationship has stood the test of time, while a typical lesbian couple marries when both want to live family life and have children. (Disclaimer: This is just a hypothesis, and the "facts" I am building upon may vary wildly depending on location and generation.)

2. At least in my country, lesbians fought for same-sex marriage harder than gays. Do some of them feel it is their responsibility to prove that the new legislation was actually needed, thus marrying with a lower threshold?

3. Do lesbian communities cling to the idea of "perfect partner" more than other groups mentioned? (Disclaimer: This is a hypothesis based on logic rather than observations.)

4. If [en.wikipedia.org] political lesbianism is more common in reality than I think, then Esoteric’s original question is quite valid. I have also heard mentions of women who don’t give a shit about politics, but opt for a same-sex relationship after being traumatized by domestic violence in heterosexual relationships.

This post has been edited by Katajanmarja: Mar 8 2023, 12:50

I know that the majority of women don't like "women" with penises.

Also it might have something to do with the fact that most women are fake as fuck. (A lot of guys are too.)

Yeah I think the problem as well is women's friends. Loads of women's friends seem to advocate for divorce especially if they are divorced or have been divorced.

In same sex couples you then have twice as many friend groups advocated for you to break up.

Its like the gendered difference in reacting when someone brings you a problem

Women: I have a problem that is making me feel bad

Male Friend: Here are the solutions I brain stormed to your problem so you can solve it.

Female Friend: I sympathize with your problem and your emotions are valid.


Women can get annoyed with men trying to solve the problems as we think "solve problem = don't have to have emotion anymore". Whereas female friends affirm and have emotional empathy but that is not necessarily a constructive solution.

A male friend, doesn't usually go, your emotions are valid and you should feel bad. They will just spam possible solutions or actively try to help you with the solution. Solving problem and then not having negative emotion is the optimum male solution.
If drunk you may all think you found the solution and even that is sufficient for a while.

sometimes not having emotions is the solution.

I'm not a lesbian and I hate women, so if you invert the equation...

Interesting question.

I'm not a pro in sexual issues but I have something to say. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I grew up in China and I'm now in Japan. The majority in both countries are not agreeable with homosexuality. However, the girls in both countries usually enjoy a colser relation ship with their friends who have the same sex than boys. For example, I've seen more than one time a girl kisses another girl in the face (which is quite uncommon in China and Japan and means their relationship is also uncommon) while her boyfriend is aside. I'm quite sure they are not bisexual.

So, what I want to say is that, maybe girls are tend to be closer with their girl-friend than boys do, but that doesn't mean they are actually homosexual, which sometimes they themselves mistakenly believe to be. Once they got married, this problem comes up above the water and leads to divorce.

Well, just saying. I like GL mangas but I've never had a talk with a true lesbian. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif)

Do non-men actually like non-men?

Do non-men actually like non-men?

I think its pink pilling a lot of 'non-men birthing units' that hate the new labels and also hate being forced to date x-men. A friend said its impossible to completely red pill lesbians, but I am not sure I understand completely.

I suppose it is sorting women into two groups with the dating apps that use facial recognition to ban neo-women vs those that force them to date x-men.

I’m afraid you just dropped some terminology that’s too new for me.

I’m certainly not the least educated on these forums when it comes to various identity labels and stuff. Might clarifications be in place?

I’m afraid you just dropped some terminology that’s too new for me.

I’m certainly not the least educated on these forums when it comes to various identity labels and stuff. Might clarifications be in place?

There is a clash between the people that believe gender is entirely a social construct arbitrarily assigned at birth and those that believe more that gender is a biological reality.

To be politically correct and inclusive, the term 'woman' has become offensive to some people, so they used the term birthing person/entity for biological women. The latest change to be ahead of the curve is to call women 'non-men' because trans women are women, but the term woman is not inclusive enough. Birth can be a shared experience, so the person giving birth is actually part of a cooperative unit because individualism is capitalist and supposedly evil**. So we have the combined title for biological women as 'non-man birthing unit', which to myself is quite offensive.

edit: ** There were BIPOC (black indigenous people of color) that pre-colonization had family structures that had shared responsibility for child rearing and different linguistic classification of the family unit. That then is the logic for the shared and lived experience of birth being collective, and the current colonial family classification as being oppressive and capitalist/imperialist.

Lesbians are being caught up because there are activists saying it is a hate crime for them not to date people that identify as women regardless of extent of transition. So the term 'non-man' is the way to resolve the conflict by changing the definition of lesbians, so anyone now classified as a 'non-man' must be attracted to all 'non-men' to count as being part of the 2SLGBTQA+ movement. If you get labelled as a trans-exclusionary feminist (TERF), then you will be kicked out of many LGBT communities.




White gay men are like:


This post has been edited by EsotericSatire: Jun 15 2023, 05:05

There is a clash between the people that believe gender is entirely a social construct arbitrarily assigned at birth and those that believe more that gender is a biological reality.

I was well aware of this clash...

If you get labelled as a trans-exclusionary feminist (TERF), then you will be kicked out of many LGBT communities.

...and largely aware of this conflict, but most of the rest of the clarifications you gave were news to me.

So, thanks a lot for your help.

My main problem with these debates is not how some folks occasionally offend me or disregard wiews I consider much easier to embrace or more logical. As a matter of fact, I like hearing fresh new ideas based on different existing linguistic classifications, or simply created from scratch by philosophers or activists.

What hurts me most is that the main purpose of these new ideas is to find new enemies – to get to exclude more people, if not worse – and that today’s society sees such a conflict-seeking orientation as a valid approach, instead of peacefully evaluating the ideas and possibly incorporating some.

This post has been edited by Katajanmarja: Jun 15 2023, 09:05

There is a clash between the people that believe gender is entirely a social construct arbitrarily assigned at birth and those that believe more that gender is a biological reality.

I used to be in the latter camp, but realized the labels didn't really matter too much to me and if it made people feel happier I'd go with whatever labels they wanted (within reason).

I don't think it's arbitrarily assigned at birth (for historical, legacy reasons, mostly) - but I do think that gender in general is a distinction that (while extant) we may have been better off if we'd never had a concept of it in a social context.

The "birthing unit" thing is stupid, of course, in my opinion. I don't think we actually need to change to something like that. But I do think that without so many stereotypes about how men and women differ, and what men/women like, etc., and we didn't use gendered language much of the time, then maybe it would be less important for people who have dysphoria because gender would play a much smaller role in their lives and how others saw them, as well as the expectations that were set for them.

Another simplified way to think of it is "if gender was not a social construct, then would transgender people no longer have dysphoria?"
That's just a thought experiment for me, though. I'm not convinced there's a 'transgender gene' or anything like that. I think a lot of it may have to do with how someone's raised and the specific situations that surround them.

I've discussed this with a trans woman and she firmly believed it was nature rather than nurture. But I remain unsure. Not that it matters much practically speaking.

What hurts me most is that the main purpose of these new ideas is to find new enemies – to get to exclude more people, if not worse – and that today’s society sees such a conflict-seeking orientation as a valid approach, instead of peacefully evaluating the ideas and possibly incorporating some.

This.

This post has been edited by dragontamer8740: Jun 17 2023, 00:11

Another simplified way to think of it is "if gender was not a social construct, then would transgender people no longer have dysphoria?"

I'm not sure if you meant to word your question this way but I would say that it is almost the opposite. If gender was a social construct, wouldn't transgender people no longer have dysphoria? Unless I'm very confused, gender dysphoria is when your physical sex is in conflict with the gender you would like to express. Therefore, if 1) gender is a social construct and 2) people are assigned and treated as a certain gender from birth, wouldn't there be no dysphoria because all people would have been social conditioned to be the gender matching their sex? It seems like there is some sort of biological reality of gender here separate from sex and society that leads to dysphoria (unless you just believe trans people are delusional/lying). Another question we could ask is "in a social void, like a child being raised by animals or simply surviving by themselves in the wild (I know this hypothetical is meme), could gender dysphoria develop?"

I would agree though that there is probably no "trans gene," though. I would say that factors present in very early development probably flip certain switches in the mind that just can't be flipped back.

I'm not sure if you meant to word your question this way but I would say that it is almost the opposite. If gender was a social construct, wouldn't transgender people no longer have dysphoria?

I am of the belief that gender is a social construct because we are free to define the word gender however we want as a society.

I like your "in a social void, like a child being raised by animals or simply surviving by themselves in the wild (I know this hypothetical is meme), could gender dysphoria develop?" question, though.

I think it could not. Because what we associate with one gender or the other is socially determined, and I think that most people feel like they need to fit a mould. Not necessarily the one they're expected to, but a mould nonetheless.

I don't think of myself in gendered terms much. I was asked earlier today (by a woman) "when does a boy become a man?" and my answer was that it shouldn't be too different from when a girl becomes a woman, so I was wondering why she was specifying "a boy becomes a man" versus "a child becomes an adult."

But that's just my opinion.

in a social void, like a child being raised by animals (...)

Uh, as if animal communities were social voids...?

I’m afraid animals, especially more complex ones such as mammals and birds, may have tons of social constructs of their own, just like they have sexual deviances and psychological problems.

And they probably have limited means to question said constructs, lacking abstract languages. (True, the current human knowledge on abstract thought and means of communication in other species is probably quite superficial.)

I would think so

Lesbians should like women

Lesbians do like women, and that includes trans women. But like everyone, we have preferences and don't just by default like all women, just can possibly like women. Labels are guidelines, not rules because there will always be exceptions and variations.

As for assigned gender at birth, it has been very harmful for intersex people, which are at least 1% of the population, so it really should be stopped. There are healthy ways to raise a baby and provide them with support and love without cultural standards surrounding a gender binary.

As for assigned gender at birth, it has been very harmful for intersex people, which are at least 1% of the population, so it really should be stopped. There are healthy ways to raise a baby and provide them with support and love without cultural standards surrounding a gender binary.

Decency and Kindness are Good.
We all should strive for these Good Values.

Objectivity and Truth are Good also.
We should strive for these Values.

Should Not have Decency and Kindness without Truth and Objectivity.

Otherwise, lacking Kindness; someone is unnecessarily Strict; or lax in excess, lacking Truth.

In both cases, you harm others.

Kindness will lead to a bad outcome otherwise.

Unnecessarily Strict: By fostering Hate; and other things. Lax in Excess: By enabling a Bad choice.

Finally:
Role and behavior for the sexes is not something socially constructed there.

Humans enforce a plethora of things.
Enforced thing can be a valid part of nature and desirable.

Force is not Bad or Good in and out of itself. People enforce good or bad things.
Those things might be necessary for people to live.

Technology might render all sort of things 'obsolete'. In the Matrix people gathered knowledge instantly through cables and stuff. Things natural and not socially constructed. If some wanted their kids to learn the 'old way' it wouldn't make the old way a Social Construct.

That being said, Sexism and other things existed 100% in society. That is oppression.

And Yet:
. Sexual Role and Behavior predates humans. Plays an important role for animals.

. Sex includes Role and Behavior there. Femininity is incredibly important there. Same with Masculinity.

. Sexual Role and Behavior are not socially constructed there.
Sexual Roles and Behaviors are truly important for the Animal Kingdom.

. Animals require Sex.
. Human beings are Animals.
. A human animal is a real thing.

. There's no sophisticated technology available most the time for anyone in Recorded History.
. Humans Predate Recorded History, for a long shot.

. For people with little-to-no technology Men and Women are very obvious things, from nature, which they required then long ago and would still require, given no 21st century tech.

. There's absolutely no 21st century technology available prior to recorded history.
. In pre-historic times there was little-to-no technology.
. Population was truly Small during these pre-recorded times everywhere.

. Femininity is incredibly important there.
. Masculinity is incredibly important there.

The rule in human history is for people to be without technology or limited technology.
And specially in comparison to the 21st century.

The rule for HUMAN HISTORY is for people to gather in small groups. Tiny compared to modern times.
Babies are precious then. Offspring spends most time with females.
Offspring and Female are intrinsically link. This is observed in many highly social species included Apes and others.
We are talking Nature and Animal Kingdom here.
Where these roles are key.

Humans are in development for long periods of time. Pre-natal and after birth.
Human beings are Social Animals and as such, possess these roles.

Actual Objective Things. From Nature = Truth?

Finally, I am really sorry if all this sounds aggressive. Can't muster the energy to make it sound less obnoxious and or autistic. I just plain suck as my Christian self. I am autistic and obnoxious still. Sorry everyone.

Lesbians do like women, and that includes trans women. But like everyone, we have preferences and don't just by default like all women, just can possibly like women. Labels are guidelines, not rules because there will always be exceptions and variations.

As for assigned gender at birth, it has been very harmful for intersex people, which are at least 1% of the population, so it really should be stopped. There are healthy ways to raise a baby and provide them with support and love without cultural standards surrounding a gender binary.

This is very close to my line of thinking.

I don't like the idea of people determining how they act by the label they want to have ascribed to them. Much better to be oneself and use labels as helpful shorthand in conversations.

sometimes not having emotions is the solution.

Could not disagree more.

I mean, pragmatically, yes. But I don't think numbness is a solution, just a band-aid.

This post has been edited by dragontamer8740: Oct 5 2023, 04:43