[X] My Assistant

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.

This is absolutely insane. Just incredible how much this fringe group has radicalized.
The really funny part is that they used to scream about how sex is totally different than gender, but then they mix them up whenever it's convenient for them.

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.

This is a conspiracy theory from the 60/70s, back when medicine was still a male dominated industry (in the west at least its not anymore), that explained why there were more gays (and later trans) than lesbians because it must be the patriarchal doctors mis-assigning babies as male at birth.

We are not far off 100 years since those theories emerged and medical diagnostics and genetic screening (at least in the west) is so much better. Its now around 1 in 2000 (0.05%) babies that are intersex, due chromosomes, genetics, or issues with external or internal genitalia.

Claiming that doctors 'guess' sex in '1%' of cases is based on analysis of medical records from like 1900-1950.
We have way better prenatal screening and diagnostics now, and mostly female doctors.

Now we have to believe the theories from the 60/70s that gender/sex is entirely a social construct even though 5-6 decades of experiments have failed to prove that.

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.

I'm yet to encounter an actual woman who likes trans women.

They think trans women are fucked in the head and need to be locked up.

I wouldn't even bother locking them up.

The solution comes in a variety of calibres.

This post has been edited by Mags_: Nov 7 2023, 22:00

This is absolutely insane. Just incredible how much this fringe group has radicalized.
The really funny part is that they used to scream about how sex is totally different than gender, but then they mix them up whenever it's convenient for them.

The issues faced by intersex people are not always the same as the ones faced by transgender people.

Intersexed people are sometimes hard to define based on genetics (especially in chimeric cases, where one fetus/embryo basically gets absorbed/subsumed by another in the womb, leading to different body parts actually having different DNA), and so defining them genetically in terms of sex can be just as complicated as defining them in terms of gender identity/brain development. Even their genitals might have some resemblance to both a penis and a vagina, so saying 'physical manifestation' is hard, too.

Sex and gender are different, but can in fact sometimes align. Which is why not everyone is transgender. I don't get how that implies that sex and gender can't sometimes be different/not aligned.

I'm yet to encounter an actual woman who likes trans women.

They think trans women are fucked in the head and need to be locked up.

I wouldn't even bother locking them up.

The solution comes in a variety of calibres.

I know at least one cisgender woman who likes trans women.

This post has been edited by dragontamer8740: Dec 7 2023, 01:56

of course lesbians love each other, they would not put in the effort to sustain a relationship otherwise. the problem is that women are much higher than men in general negative emotion and neuroticism, which makes lesbian relationships more volatile. it's almost unbelievable but over 40% of lesbian relationships report physical violence, stalking, or rape.

in short, women need men. we will never be equal, that will never change. and that is really unfortuinate for women who are lesbians i guess.

This is a conspiracy theory from the 60/70s, back when medicine was still a male dominated industry (in the west at least its not anymore), that explained why there were more gays (and later trans) than lesbians because it must be the patriarchal doctors mis-assigning babies as male at birth.

We are not far off 100 years since those theories emerged and medical diagnostics and genetic screening (at least in the west) is so much better. Its now around 1 in 2000 (0.05%) babies that are intersex, due chromosomes, genetics, or issues with external or internal genitalia.

Claiming that doctors 'guess' sex in '1%' of cases is based on analysis of medical records from like 1900-1950.
We have way better prenatal screening and diagnostics now, and mostly female doctors.

Now we have to believe the theories from the 60/70s that gender/sex is entirely a social construct even though 5-6 decades of experiments have failed to prove that.

[url=https://isna.org/faq/frequency/]

[isna.org] https://isna.org/faq/frequency/[/url]

There are many parameters that address intersex, so maybe you are thinking one particular kind? Research can be difficult, but I am pretty confident this is accurate and well based statement. But I admit this could be wrong and I stand corrected if it proves otherwise (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I'm yet to encounter an actual woman who likes trans women.

Oh boy, I am sorry to hear that you have had that experience. As someone very active in the queer community, I can assure you there are plenty out there. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[url=https://isna.org/faq/frequency/]

[isna.org] https://isna.org/faq/frequency/[/url]

There are many parameters that address intersex, so maybe you are thinking one particular kind? Research can be difficult, but I am pretty confident this is accurate and well based statement. But I admit this could be wrong and I stand corrected if it proves otherwise (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

That is also a 1% estimate including all relevant and remotely related conditions. A whole bunch of those conditions are not guess work anymore where they assign a random gender at birth and even that reference counts 0.1% as having an assigned gender at birth, requiring some form of intervention.

With Klinefelter syndrome now you are more likely to be autistic (5 times as likely) vs trans (1 out 650 assigned gender out of 1 in 1000 with Klinefelter)

The only valid statistics are ones with a selection strategy crafted to serve my point.

And 1% of 8 billion people is 80 million people. Just a reminder. 1 out of 100 is not "vanishingly rare." Some schools have graduating classes much larger than that.

So not so fun fact: A lot of intersex double genitalia cases are "treated" by doctors in the US by them being forced to just be female because that is deemed an easier surgery.
I actually am good friends with someone who is chimeric and has internally both sets of sexual reproductive organs! Pretty neat but often inconvenient cuz more possible things to go wrong. Ah, bodies and their complications.

Feels like something that should be posted in this thread, too, since chimerism was already mentioned.

Not a fan of any genital modifications on youth, from circumcision all the way up through these kinds of "corrections."

This post has been edited by dragontamer8740: Dec 24 2023, 07:46

Oh boy, I am sorry to hear that you have had that experience.

I'm more sorry for the lesbians who have to deal with mentally ill males larping as women.

If their goal was to lie to everyone, they'd be conservative media.

That's tge most coherent thought you'll get from me today; I am very tired

I know at least one cisgender woman who likes trans women.

So do I.

Now we have to believe the theories from the 60/70s that gender/sex is entirely a social construct

The last time I read into it, gender was a social construct, sex was a biological property.

But what is sex?

The best answer I have been able to come up with on my own is, "Sex is determined by chromosomes. Those chromosome combinations that mostly produce human beings with female genitalia define females. Those chromosome combinations that mostly produce human beings with male genitalia define males."

The best answer by a professional that I’ve read so far is, "Sex, as a biological concept, is determined by the ability to reproduce. Human beings who are capable of mothering children are female. Human beings who are capable of fathering children are male."

The only reason why I have not completely abandoned my own definition is that said professional did not even mention those people who are not capable of either. Logically, they would have to be labeled "sexless" or "third sex", regardless of external appearance, if we accepted the given premises.

Thus defining sex is pretty complicated but not necessarily impossible. Giving a solid definition of gender, a social construct, must be vastly more complicated or downright impossible.

Now, I have never wanted to believe that gender is entirely a social construct. In my view, it is a social construct based on the biologies and roles of typical mother/biological female and typical father/biological male, which predate the existence of our species. However, the earliest cultural additions to the construct predate recorded history, and that fact does matter. Something that intuitively feels female or male to us does not necessarily have to be so – with a limited number of notable exceptions, some of which have already become historical due to technological advances.

Societal gender roles (far more than the concept of biological sex) should be open to discussion just as well as systems of government. "God" or "nature" does not dictate that all people should live in a monarchy or in a democracy. Similarly, "God" or "nature" does not dictate that all people with two X chromosomes should wear skirts, become mothers, marry men, or whatever a given society considers "proper womanly conduct". (The same goes for XYs and others, mutatis mutandis.)

The way I see it, both conservatives and "liberals" (in the modern American sense of the word) today are pushing gender-related agendas that hurt individuals. The former group wants to mold people based on its accepted traditions; the latter wants to mold them according to its revolutionary ideas. Both prefer attack to observation, and have a tendency to use scientific data selectively.

I’m clearly leaning towards the "liberal" views and goals in this debate – well, at least compared to how sexual minorities were seen back in the days. Yet I’ve gotten more than enough hate from "liberals" over the years because I have failed to accept their theories as unquestionable truths. One significant point here is that while the conservative side wants to label all trans people mentally ill, the "liberal" side dogmatically considers it an offense if I propose that psychological problems might play a major role in more cases than they think today and that more caution and research is needed. I’d like us to reach a point where psychological problems are not seen as stigmatizing per se, and on the other hand, we don’t need to admire all of somebody’s crazy antics just because (s)he belongs to an oppressed minority... In the meantime, haters gonna hate.

Feminist Kate Worley once attacked certain "liberal" "truths" with the words, "If you can’t question it, it ain’t a revolution." Ever since I’ve been wondering whether she came up with that herself or whether that was a famous quote from someone.

Uhh. I can hardly believe I produced this rant for a thread that’s supposed to be about the essence of female homosexuality. Merry Christmas, folks. (Feel free to burn me at the stake for not mentioning Kwanzaa, or alternatively for the fact that I am referring to Jesus despite my atheism.)

This post has been edited by Katajanmarja: Dec 25 2023, 05:17

I’m clearly leaning towards the "liberal" views and goals in this debate – well, at least compared to how sexual minorities were seen back in the days. Yet I’ve gotten more than enough hate from "liberals" over the years because I have failed to accept their theories as unquestionable truths.

Dogma as a substitute for critical thinking is super common, unfortunately. I know trans people who became disillusioned with academia after seeing how they were treating these subjects like religion.

One significant point here is that while the conservative side wants to label all trans people mentally ill, the "liberal" side dogmatically considers it an offense if I propose that psychological problems might play a major role in more cases than they think today and that more caution and research is needed. I’d like us to reach a point where psychological problems are not seen as stigmatizing per se, and on the other hand, we don’t need to admire all of somebody’s crazy antics just because (s)he belongs to an oppressed minority... In the meantime, haters gonna hate.

Your thoughts are too nuanced for this thread, I fear, but I thank you for posting them anyway.

If we consider any psychological deviation from the norm a mental illness, then yes, we could say they are mentally ill.

Autistic people are also mentally ill. But a lot of people (here especially) can see the "positives" of those sorts of personalities; that's where the whole "Fucking normies get out! rrEEEEEEEEE" thing came from on 4chan. A sort of pride in their own interests and deviation from established norms. But no one is calling them mentally ill, even if it's at just as obvious (if not moreso).

The phrase "mentally ill" however often carries social connotations that the person is a danger to themselves or others, or just totally unfit for living in society. And that's why I don't like the way the term is thrown around relating to transgender people. Many of them can live independently, and many of them can and do contribute things to the places they live or work, in my opinion. Many do not consider slipping up and calling them "he" or "she" to be a hate crime. They have become political footballs.

Also, it's a lot easier to become radicalized when there are people that would like you dead or erased, or else being forced to live your life the way some G-man or clergyman sees fit for you to live.

The definition of mentally ill can also change with time, though, since it's totally based on ideas people have of what normal acceptable behavior is.

Happy nailing-a-guy-to-a-tree day to you, too.

Happy nailing-a-guy-to-a-tree day to you, too.

Nice to see you are taking Easter seriously enough to send your wishes early. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Nice to see you are taking Easter seriously enough to send your wishes early. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

It's a day that celebrates the birth of a guy whose only accomplishment was being nailed to a tree.

And 1% of 8 billion people is 80 million people. Just a reminder. 1 out of 100 is not "vanishingly rare." Some schools have graduating classes much larger than that.

1 in 100 is high estimate if you assume that anyone with any sexual anomaly is potentially trans. With modern medicine we know its more like 0.1 (not requiring) - 0.025% (requiring medical intervention). The founding myth was that all intersex were assigned male due to the patriarchy regardless of actual sex.

The trend of rapid onset gender dysphoria in girls in particular, in high school in particular, with groups that are exposed to social media I think tends to point to a social contagion.

We also have the increased percent of people with autism being diagnosed as trans. I don't have particular evidence for this hot take, but if you gaslight autists into being cisgender they tend to be happier than if you gaslight them into being trans gender. That's just going off the stats for mental health and gender identity and how many on the spectrum can struggle with understanding gender / sex when younger, so its almost like they are gaslit either way until their 20s.

Now, I have never wanted to believe that gender is entirely a social construct. In my view, it is a social construct based on the biologies and roles of typical mother/biological female and typical father/biological male, which predate the existence of our species.

The science is evolving but not as fast as some think. Sex and gender is around 70% genetics and 30% environment, though there is overlap of 20% as gene expression is affected by environment. Society is part of the environmental impact and as we are highly social animals could play a major role.

As a large percentage of gender expression, and gender roles have been consistent across history and different societies it is unclear how large the environmental impact of society actually is.

The scientists and academics that believed that gender was entirely a social construct (usually for revolutionary or radical reasons) have crashed into so many brick walls over the past 50 years. Unlike regular science they keep trying only to provide evidence to prove their theories and still keep failing. It seems highly political / religious these days.

I’m clearly leaning towards the "liberal" views and goals in this debate – well, at least compared to how sexual minorities were seen back in the days. Yet I’ve gotten more than enough hate from "liberals" over the years because I have failed to accept their theories as unquestionable truths. One significant point here is that while the conservative side wants to label all trans people mentally ill, the "liberal" side dogmatically considers it an offense if I propose that psychological problems might play a major role in more cases than they think today and that more caution and research is needed.

I am more moderately left leaning these days. The funny thing is, that its the 'liberals' that are keeping being trans as a mental health issue. It is required as part of the legal waiver for big pharma that you sign that you have gender dysphoria and are at risk of suicide, otherwise big pharma, the medical practitioners and the hospitals are at fault like in all the lawsuits up to 2016. Depending on the western country, each person that enters the transition pipeline is worth 100-300k.




This topic was on the Lesbian 'paradox' regarding divorces.

On the original topic I got some other perspectives from IRL friends I am not sure I posted:

With the smaller dating pool lesbians often feel its near impossible to get the 'perfect match' personality wise and so that could explain the higher divorce rate.

Gays are less likely to get married or more likely to have open marriages so when married are more likely to stay married?
One gay friend said that men are more likely to get married for economic and pragmatic reasons or if they were serious about adoption. A lot of lesbians yolo'd into marriage where gay guys will live with someone way longer first.

This post has been edited by EsotericSatire: Dec 27 2023, 10:58

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)

(IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/huh.gif) Lesbians do exist the women you are talking about is either bi women or straight women don’t get confused LESBIANS WILL NEVER LIKE MEN or find them attractive romantically/sexually. You should talk to real lesbians and be respectful man. Have a good day/night

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.)

Before the thread gets closed due to being necro'd by RQUXI....


The data is in, even when adjusting for lower marriage rates, gay men initiate divorces at the same rate as men in hetero relationships.

Lesbians initiate divorce higher than woman in hetero relationships but that could be confounded by there being two female partners. So it could be the same rate. Similarly domestic violence has shot up for same sex female relationships but this could be due to lawyers and family courts virtually incentivizing people. People are incentivized by lawyers in custody battles and hostile divorce settlements to get AVOs against the partner in order to 'win' in court. There also seems to be discrimination (?) where they more masculine expressing partner is assumed to be the guilty party.

And 1% of 8 billion people is 80 million people. Just a reminder. 1 out of 100 is not "vanishingly rare."

Yeah well good thing the actual number (and I mean "actual" as in according to the mainstream scientific sources, not what I heard on 4chan) of intersex people is about 0.02% and not 1%.