From Swiping to Sexting: The Gender Divide in American Dating and Relationships | Hacker News Reader

From Swiping to Sexting: The Gender Divide in American Dating and Relationships

americansurveycenter.org

54 pointsloser777106 comments

I have done dating startups few times, even went on 1+ dates a day for six months and on each actively tried to understand how people date; in my experience, people are highly random, rarely reach anywhere near a significant sample, and tend to focus of characteristics of an individual instead of characteristics related to relationships.

If I was to do another social platform that supports dating, it would be one that’s friendly first, dating second. Reason being that in my experience people don’t understand that they wrongly focus on attributes of individual when looking for a relationship instead of looking at the individual’s relationship attributes.

Individuals attributes are things like: attractiveness, age, hobbies, finances, religion, race, profession, etc.

Relationship attributes are things like: communication, engagement, supportiveness, helpfulness, honesty, trustworthiness, kindness, empathy, compassion, availability, reliability, consistency, mindfulness, openness, receptiveness, contribution, etc.

The relationship attributes apply platonic and non-platonic relationships — but are much better predictors of non-platonic relationship success long term than the individual attributes.

I'll take the hardest pass ever on a "dating startup" that tells me I shouldn't care about the attractiveness, age, or finances of a potential partner.

It’s not that they don’t matter, but that they’re significantly less important than if a person is actually has strong relationship attributes — all of which are measurable via platonic relationships. Most dating platforms as is are extremely hostile to their customers actually finding real relationships, since as soon as they do, by definition, they’re no longer customers; for a friend’s first platform, they would not be the case.

They're not less important, they're table stakes. Is there wiggle room, sure. Maybe sometimes people are capable of being a little more flexible on these things than they realize.

But for example, I think this is true of just about everyone: there's an age range that they're willing to date within, and outside of that range, everyone is a hard pass.

I wouldn't date someone who was twice my age, no matter how great their personality was, it's an absolute no.

Similarly if we use BMI as a proxy for attractiveness. This one may be a little more controversial but I suspect just about everyone has a BMI range they are comfortable with, and if someone is far enough outside of that range, there is no chance, no matter what anyone says, that you are going to date them.

I agree that most dating platforms are hostile to their customers but I think the issues there run much deeper. They all have incentives to _keep you engaged with their platform for as long as possible_, that is how they make the most money. They don't make money by finding you a partner. They are really just social media that can charge a monthly membership fee.

I don't see OP arguing against people having those preferences, only that focusing on those attributes will lead to a lower likelihood of successfully finding a relationship

A relationship where one or more participants are unempathetic and uncommunicative is at higher risk of ending than one on the other side of the spectrum, regardless of how attractive each of the partners are

Agree, though it’s not just that focusing that having relationship skills is a predictor of long term success in relationships, but that people that focus first on non-relationship skills tend to also have poor relationship skills.

Beyond that, main thesis is that relationships skills are largely shared between platonic and non-platonic relationships and that if there was a social network where 50% or more of relationships were based on platonic relationships, that there “relationship score” would be baked into evaluation for potential dates; basically, unless you had significant non-platonic relationship score, you would not be able to unlock dating on the platform and as result, it would be a friends first network; though to be clear, once dating was unlocked as result of achieving a meaningful “relationship score” users would be able to just go on dates.

What I don’t hear you acknowledging is that partners without relationships skills are significantly less likely to last — or for that matter, that you even value relationships skills. If you don’t, that’s fine, but you to me are both missing my core point and also in my opinion much less likely to actually end up in a meaningful relationship.

You aren't hearing me acknowledge those things because I have not agreed to enter into a relationship with you where you coach me, or frankly one where you have any involvement in my personal life whatsoever. I am not interested in having that with you, so please do not presume.

This is a forum for hackers and entrepreneurs. You are an entrepreneur who has run a string of dating startups. I am informing you about the preferences which exist in this market. You believe these preferences to be wrong. I think there may be business advantage for you in recognizing that those preferences are real and not wrong.

Acknowledging alternative perspectives has nothing to do with agreeing with them or for that matter, partaking in them.

Also, obviously aware that significant percentage of people focus on attributes that are a poor predictor of long term success in a relationship and have zero desire to engage that market; not to mention you falsely assume that your definition of an entrepreneur is same as mine.

Lastly, happy to be proven wrong, but majority of HN is neither a hacker or entrepreneur, but just people that are curious people interested in being around other curious people.

You're not wrong that dating platforms are like that (Tinder, I think being the most obvious) -- and you seem to have direct experience with this -- but suggesting that people start platonically is very ... Sunday church style.

I guess everyone is different, but for me relationships that start out platonically...end up platonic. If nothing happens in the first 3-5 dates...nothing ever will really. I realize that's part of "dating" culture too -- but there is also something behind it -- if I'm REALLY attracted to someone, I'll put the moves on earlier (or they will etc).

What I have had good success in -- and there is something to this I believe -- is meeting romantic partners in similar interest social circles that appeal to both (or however many there are now) genders. You meetup with others of similar interest for a couple of hours once a week, natural attraction forms, if both are interested the independent romantic meeting will happen naturally. The dating nature of it is all -- hidden (and in fact I didn't go into these meetings planning to date anyways).

It's hard to bottle that up exactly into an app though.

Actually, I don’t agree with the whole date friends of friends or joining an existing social group is a good approach, or at the very least, it has pros and cons. When dating from a pool of like that, people tend to act significantly different and if short term relationship fails to become long term relationship, it generally has a negative impact on one of the individuals and/or group.

I agree with you, but read what I said again and understand I'm not suggesting dating friends of friends or known social circles.

You need to date kind of "anonymously" (to avoid exactly what you are talking about), but with people that have similar interests. So in short form I'm talking about meeting up with people of similar hobbies or interests (rock climbing, board gaming, going to raves, whatever)

You’re right, so jaded by whole dating within an existing social group that I responded just based on that.

Also, I agree, the whole love at first sight is for sure a very real pattern, and uncommon for friendships to develop into something more. That said, in truly long term relationships, vast majority of those types of feelings significantly fade after the “honeymoon” phase of a relationship. Further, if someone is with you for example financial reasons, it’s much less likely they’ll stick around if financial hardships are experienced or they find someone else with significantly more financial resources.

My thesis is not so much to grow friendships into non-platonic relationships, but that relationship attributes are predictable among platonic and non-platonic relationships and that by requiring someone build a “relationship reputation” first, then when engaging other users in the context of going on a date, there’s a much higher chance that they’ll actually have relationships skills.

Whole shared interests aspect is also a frequently sighted as a desirable aspect of a relationship, though rarely good predictor of relationships skills.

> When dating from a pool of like that, people tend to act significantly different

Can you expand on this? Because the only thing I have in mind is that it's actually beneficial to meet people from such groups, compared to apps, or clubs/bars/parties. I had way better experiences in those friends groups than in the other places, even when it's just the types of rejections you receive.

I agree with the second statement, that it is more awkward in a friends group when a short relationship is over, compared to not meeting someone any more you only know from an app.

Sure, happy to clarify anything, including why I see engaging an existing social group with the intention of finding a long term relationship as problematic.

In my experience, way people act in a relationship long term is frequently is more comparable to how people act around strangers than within an existing social group. Common example of this would be if you’re on a date with a stranger and they just randomly leave, are mean to waiting staff, etc — though they would not likely exhibit that same negative behavior the date was from a existing social group because of the negative blow back.

That's a fair point, a test in an environment where social norms force conformance to rules is less helpful than such a test where there is no/little social enforcement against bad behaviour. The same time though, when you are in a dating environment, then you know that the other partner is also judging you. So sure there are people who leave on the first date and stuff like that, but people will always present some version of themselves towards people, whether you are a stranger or a friend. But lying to a friend circle for a long time is much harder than lying on someone you only met through some internet chat app with pictures

For example, it's easy for a cheater to not tell on apps that they are in a relationship, while it's tough to lie to an entire friend circle about that. They would have had to join the friend circle just with the plan to mislead people. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's a higher bar. Like leaving an unlocked bycicle around vs one that can be opened in 10 seconds with a 50$ tool: with the first you can drive off immediately upon discovery while the second requires you to bring the tool with you.

Just to be clear, I agree it would be harder to cheat for a potential long term mate from an existing social group. That said, if a potential partner was a cheater, it’s highly likely that it would be much easier to figure out if a stranger is cheating than someone from an existing social group, since they already are aware that they need to be careful if they don’t want to be caught.

Said another way, it’s ultimately impossible to know for sure if someone is cheating without reaching the point of being equally toxic by not respecting an individual’s right to privacy, independence, etc.

When you buy a car, what is your first filter to narrow the market?

What is a pretty car? Or, do I need an SUV, truck or car? Do you want ICE or EV or Hybrid?

Or do you start by picking all the red cars that you think are pretty and then find one that suits your needs?

Sorry for comparing dating to buying a car.

> When you buy a car, what is your first filter to narrow the market?

Price

So you'd rather drive a cheap, old, ugly car than an moderately priced decent looking car?

Yes. As long as it works. Insurance should be cheaper as well. And if something happens to it, I won't feel too bad about it.

In my experience the only apps that I found helping people feel less lonely, finding partner and friends, have been couchsurfing (now paid) and Meetup.

In my 2nd tier spanish city Id say it's a great success.

In other cities I've heard every meetup group feels like a business, but here it's language exchange, going to eat something, museums, etc.

Apparently it's a bit pricey for group hosts.

In my particular case I was stuck with friends that do nothing at all. Got into meetups and met a lot of new people, allways have plans, and just met an Italian girl who may develop (or not) into a relationship.

I've been in Tinder for years. Im ok looking and I get dates from time to time and it's not even close. It always felt shallow and I had to force myself throufh it, as the experience is pretty meh.

I hope Meetup doesn't become another bussiness like Couchsurfing, trying to milk the community and destroying it in the process.

Edit: Creeps can also destroy groups. I've seet it happen, and I guess that's more of a problem in other larger cities, but there are some men out there that make people, specially women, really uncomfortable.

Neither Couch Surfer, nor Meetup are designed for dating — and in my experience anyone using them for dating has a negative impact on there intended use. In the case of Meetup, there are dating groups, but in my experience those are a waste of time.

You don't have to use them for dating to feel less lonely. You can use them to build up a network of friends and have relationships form more organically. Weren't you also the user posting about a friends first approach? This seems like the closest thing to that.

Used to attended wide variety of Meetups and used Couch Surfer too. It’s pretty obvious when people are attending or using a platform for dating, though they rarely say so. For example, hosts that only host attractive females on Couch Surfer. Or meetups where attendees leave if there’s no attractive female that are in attendance or only talk to the attractive females. Even females that are interested in dating are easy to spot too in my experience. — Very rarely are people that are interested in dating taking a friends first approach, it’s time consuming, and to my knowledge no platform that enables users to build a “friend reputation score” based on users rating them.

Anything that you do "for dating" usually goes south because it will be by definition forced. The above comment said instead going to meetups for museum visits, dining, basically sharing experiences, opening yourself to new.

Not really true, but is true that it’s highly random and takes a large sample in my experience to actually find someone.

In my experience, all the event types mentioned are largely attended by single people looking for dates. Even the language exchange groups, which have a highly specific and functional intent, tend to be single oriented.

On the flipside, if platform attempted to enforce maintaining 50/50 balance of user base that’s single or not single and explicit forbids users mentioning dating unless they are above a predefined “friend score” — it would remove a lot of people that are not interested in relationship attributes.

I remember someone writing an article about becoming a couchsurfing host to have one-night stands. By the end of the first summer the dude

- learned how to reliably tell if his guest was willing to sleep with her hosts before inviting her - came up with a rehearsed tour of the city, complete with a spontaneous romantic lunch in a hidden gem of a cafe (with a reliable poker-face waiter) - ironed out the kinks in the "from the front door to the bedroom" follow-up routine

Also relatively easy to spot hosts like this if you know how — though platform oddly doesn’t actively ban users doing this.

Honestly, I don’t think a lot of users understand how potentially dangerous some online services are or for that matter, how to manage or recognize risks; not to mention platforms generally hide their risks, since it impacts user engagement.

"One 19-year-old women says that she’s looking for mutual respect in a relationship and someone who approaches issues with an open mind."

And probably a dozen other things. Self reporting is very hard for this type of thing. Theynshould probably have surveyed ex-partners and prior dates to get both sides of the story. In my experience, most of the time when a woman says she wants you to have an open mind, it means she wants you to agree with her because her mind is already made up. Respectful disagreement is unfathomable because it could invalidate or compete with her position.

As a counter point, having gone on 100s of dates and met 10s of thousands of people in real life, in my experience people that mention open mindedness as a desirable attribute tend to mean it, at least as it relates to those who do not mention it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but pretty much everybody will list the very same desirable traits like open mindedness, humor... and you can go on.

No, vast amounts of people that see being open minded as a negative predictor of a desirable attribute. If I had to guess, your sampling is biased. For example, someone dating in a rural region would have much less success sharing that they’re open minded, since it’s not a cultural norm.

Sure, the subset of people mentioning any trait is more likely to want that trait than the subset who doesn't mention it. But that doesn't mean the individual is accurately self evaluating what they want, especially when it comes to intangible things like open-mindedness. I assume preferenced on physical/tangible traits are more consistent between stated preference and reality.

Agree. Most obvious example being people’s self evaluation of attractiveness relative to their evaluation of another person’s attractiveness. That said, pretty easy to tell if someone humble, pragmatic, etc — just by engaging them.

You do understand that this reasoning cuts both ways. It is much more likely (and mainstream) for the man in the relationship to not tolerate views from their partner that could invalidate or compete with his position, to paraphrase your words.

As an example, respectful disagreement with the man in a relationship is explicitly discouraged by conservative Christianity. Women are encouraged to have "loving submission" to their husbands. Just Google "biblical meaning of submission in marriage" if you want a citation.

Here's the first result when I googled "biblical meaning of submission in marriage":

"Submission in marriage means selflessness, service, accountability, and respect for your partner, which should be mutual; it is not slavery or a woman's call to lose her voice. The fundamental rubric on which The Christian marriage is built is love, and love is anything but the desire to control."

I concede that was not a good rhetorical point to make, and I should have checked what Google summarizes as "the answer."

Here's a karma point.

"You do understand that this reasoning cuts both ways."

I understand that.

How common is that form of conservative Christianity? Most Christians I know (who are not Amish, but they wouldn't use these sites anyways) do not follow that interpretation of the Bible, but rather believe the meaning of the stories to be that each person should be devoted to each other and listen to each other's perspective (the story mentions husbands treating their wives kindly, but the only way to really do that is to listen).

Yes, I concede that was not a good rhetorical point to make.

My reaction to the parent comment came from my feeling that men expecting their girlfriends to never confront them or disagree, especially in public, is a much more common, and generally accepted, dynamic.

The fundamentalist interpretation, as I understand, is that husband and wife should be devoted to each other but the husband's authority is final, and a kind of tie breaker in a disagreement.

But yeah, at scale its probably an edge case.

Americans (younger ones anyways), simply don't seem to know how to date to put it bluntly. I've been on Tinder in the US and to a lesser extent Canada, and everyone is hyper demanding and -- particularly women lately -- demand that the other person "proves" this or that (how cool they are, or how worthy of being paid attention to, etc). For hookups Tinder isn't bad, but for relationships it should be avoided at all costs, especially if you are somewhat docile. :P

Badoo and OKCupid are somehwhat better.

In other countries (Europe and Asia say), people date more normally - or as you would expect. "You seem nice, want to meet for coffee?" / "Sure."

I'd love to read an updated version of the infamous OkCupid blog.

They were bought out and turned into another version of Tinder, Badoo, etc. - there is no commercial incentive to release it.

Thing with OkCupid is people refuse to actually practice the science of relationships. For example, they repeatedly were able to show blind dates produce better results, but the user base refused to participate in blind dates. At the point you’re cherry picking and reading dating science as entertainment or to back one off patterns that meet your desired outcome, that’s opposite of what the authors intended.

>the user base refused to participate in blind dates

And I can see why. Higher chances of a good result, but also higher chances of getting a fat woman or something like that.

It's a date, not a lifetime commitment. And who knows, maybe the fat woman is worth knowing?

If it's only a date, you want someone attractive to have sex with. I don't see the difference.

I feel like you're confusing "date" with "hookup."

Maybe I'm not explaining myself well.

If you are having a date looking to have a long-time relationship, you want someone attractive. And if you are having a date looking to hook up, you want someone attractive. So it makes no difference at all.

Unless you are looking for a friend. But then "date" is not the word that I would use.

Building a successful relationship is way more about friendship than sex.

You say "you" when you mean "I".

Generally the attractiveness of an individual fades over time, especially after the honeymoon phase of a relationship. This is especially true over long durations when comparing younger alternative mates on purely a physical basis.

I suspect in this case the level of attractiveness play a role. You might get a 10 (for your taste) with horrible personality and a 6 with incredible personality, you might decide to compromise.

Or even more, you might change your taste for attractiveness over time.

Then, I know nothing about dates, been for 14 years with my wife and I met her when I was 20, so take everything with a lot of salt.

Some features that are attractive also can't be represented in photos (movement behavior).

Well say you're into fitness, you'd probably wanna date someone a bit more active. But I agree that the plus size woman could have a great personality.

Dating is bullshit, online dating is bullshit squared. It's like this game where you have to carefully scrutinize the other person while hiding your own flaws and not letting on that you are carefully scrutinizing them. It's stressful in the way job interviews are stressful.

I only got married because I knew my wife really well -- for decades beforehand -- and so our relationship benefits from a sort of Lindy effect.

The results of the survey this article is based on seems to be nonsense. The numbers for women and men in each category should more or less match, unless there were a huge difference in same-sex or one-to-many relationsships or in the absolute numbers of male vs female, which seems implausible.

There could be differences in definition between two groups, such as who considers themselves to be in a committed relationship. However, I agree that it appears they have some sampling problems. Also, the methodology is not apparent aside from sample size and I couldn't find it anywhere.

I saw that top for the number of single men vs single women, especially considering that women account for 51% of the population. I wonder if there was selection bias, or even if there could be some participants lying due to embarrassment of being single. Although your same-sex and multi relationship thing could be worth looking into. I don't know the numbers, but anecdotally I know way more lesbian women than gay men. And it's a trope that couple look for unicorns (indicating demand).

> The numbers for women and men in each category should more or less match

Not quite, the survey focuses on 18-29 age group. It’s not covered in the article but women have a preference for slightly older men.

The women answering in the 27+ age could have corresponding men outside the sample group of men.

For me the most interesting thing was that generally Republican men and women are measurably more satisfied then their Democratic counterparts.

Is it because Republicans generally value family values and staying in stable relationships more?

Also another interesting thing is Gen Z relying on Friendships rather than online dating to find their partners. I think we have a generation fed up with algorithms and how shallow online partner selection can be.

> I think we have a generation fed up with algorithms and how shallow online partner selection can be.

Not to mention the apps fuck with people, creating fake “matches” and downranking them to try to goad desperate people into paying them money.

Aren't there traditional matchmaking agencies for people looking for serious relationships in the USA?

I know somebody who made a small fortune by matchmaking her own brides catalogue. Like, not just organizing the get-togethers and technicalities, but actually working to know both sides and, well, match them on the person level. So by my 1-sized sample I would say human touch can still beat algorithms.

I wonder how many college educated persons work in or for tobacco companies... or at least somewhere in their supply chain...

Disclaimer: published by the American Enterprise Institute, a centre-right think tank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

>a center-right think tank

Well-poisoning[0]. If there are flaws with the surveys, criticize that.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

No, I think if there is a clear bias from the source, you can also acknowledge that _and_ evaluate the piece itself. The source in this case has a clear conservative bias.

https://www.aei.org/policy-areas/poverty-studies/

You haven't argued that it isn't well-poisoning, just that you believe the well-poisoning is justified.

A poisoned-well "argument" has the following form: 1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented by another. (e.g. "Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail") 2. Therefore, the claims made by person A will be false.

I didn't make any assumptions on the veracity of their data or claims. Think tanks are politically motivated groups whose work entirely revolves around shifting the public's and decision makers opinions. I don't think it hurts to add a disclaimer.

Do you post on liberal sources "Disclaimer: this comes from a liberal source" too? If you're not doing it uniformly, regardless of bias, then yes, you are poisoning the well.

There is far, far more reason to be worried about sources on the right than there is sources on the left. Right-aligned sources are much more likely to deny science, to skew information in a way that benefits corporate benefactors, and to contain bias against marginalized groups such as LGBTQ and even women.

You are biased. You are poison to the well.

There it is.

Not sure I agree about the right being more likely to deny science, considering the way discussion around gender seems to work. I'm still trying to find out just how many there are, but nobody knows. Of course, we're not allowed to really discuss that though. Not sure that's very scientific..

Gender is a social construct[0], it is not defined by biological sex, although due to societal norms it often correlates, and can be influenced, by biological sex.

What isn't scientific (as is, no longer valid in scientific consensus[0]) is the premise that gender and biological sex are synonymous, and that, as your comment implies, transgender or nonbinary identity is a denial of science.

Just in case you're going to jump on to the title of the third article i posted below, note that it says gender is not just a social construct, rather than that it isn't such at all. I'll quote an excerpt from that article:

    Evidence that gender has some basis in biology, though, in no way implies a strict gender binary, nor negates the existence of transgender and non-binary identities. Many biology-based gender differences originate from the hormonal environment within the womb, which is very different on average for boys compared to girls. But there’s a huge variation in these environments, says Alice Eagly, psychology professor at Northwestern University. “Within boys there will be a range and within girls there will be a range. To say it’s biological doesn’t mean it’s perfectly binary,” she says.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction

[1]https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/what-do-we-mean-by-se...

[2]https://qz.com/1190996/scientific-research-shows-gender-is-n...

Some people are trying to restrict the word "gender" for political purposes, but it also continues to be used as a synonym of biological sex, a meaning that it has had for centuries.

> In the 15th century gender expanded from its use as a term for a grammatical subclass to join sex in referring to either of the two primary biological forms of a species, a meaning sex has had since the 14th century

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

It changed in the 15th century, and it’s changing now. Language is like that.

I agree, it's not a new phenomenon, language changes all the time.

But while some language changes rise from the people, others (like this one) are dictated by powerful institutions.

Orwell described it well about 100 years ago. Change the meaning of words to make disagreement impossible. Newspeak "designed to diminish the range of thought".

eyeroll

Nothing constructive to say? Are you here to discuss this topic, or to prevent discussion?

It means "I can't fruitfully discuss this topic with someone who is stuck in an ideological local maximum".

Transgender identity and acknowledgement of the fluid, multidimensional nature of gender IS NOT a conspiracy to take your precious bodily fluids. Don't believe me? Go to San Francisco and try meeting some of the "co-conspirators" -- transgender men and women on the skids, having to turn to professions like sex work, because they ran from their conservative families fearing for their FUCKING LIVES. Living on the edges of society and the law, having to develop their own biopunk parallel medical support because legitimate medicine won't treat them in the way that they need, all to survive in a society that simply wishes they didn't exist because them existing violates a false foundational premise of society: that gender is binary and corresponds to physical sex.

But I've said too much. eyeroll is all the response you deserve.

Those aren't the co-conspirators. The co-conspirators are the people pushing this false idea for profit and political gain.

The people you're describing are the victims of an ideology that falsely told them they could ignore biology and thereby ruined a lot of lives.[1]

Obviously their families were also wrong to abandon them, and like everyone else on the streets, they deserve help to put their lives back together, but if they are still living on the streets they obviously aren't getting that help from the people who claim to represent them but are actually using them as political props instead of helping them find homes and professions they like.

1: I encourage you to read this other discussion that was on HN today:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34753240

> I encourage you to read this other discussion

yes, there's a lot of horrid crap on this topic on HN lately. It's been politicised already, no need to push this agenda further. Your encouragement is not needed, that nonsense is quite visible. eyeroll.

The author describers herself as a queer woman, married to a transman, to the left of Bernie Sanders, and a case manager at The Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children's Hospital.

If you won't even listen to her, dismissing her experience as "horrid crap", then perhaps you're "stuck in an ideological local maximum". Is there anyone you would listen to?

It's the commentary and the ends to which it is put, that are the horrid crap. Case in point, your comments above.

She's very clear that what's being done is the "horrid crap".

"What’s happening to children is morally and medically appalling."

You probably think you're supporting a good cause, but you're not.

> You probably think you're supporting a good cause, but you're not

project much?

"horrid crap" was my term, you don't get to tell me what I mean.

It's transparently a drummed-up wedge issue, designed to demonise a vulnerable minority for political gain and distraction, and as such is utterly without merit and not worthy of more of my attention. And if allowed to continue, it won't end with that group.

You don't strike me as an instigator of this nonsense though. No, you seem more like you're carrying water for them, what Lenin called a "Useful idiot".

tl;dr: Eyeroll

Hilarious. It's not conservatives who are pushing this issue; it's the kind of people who quote Lenin.

I agree it's a "drummed-up wedge issue", that's essentially what I've been saying all along, but you know who really drummed it up.

The same people who are encouraging vulnerable youth to have dangerous medical treatments.

> It's not conservatives who are pushing this issue;

This is a flat denial of reality over the last few years.

So then what constitutes a gender now, and how many are there?

Both science and language evolve over time, that isn't a political conspiracy.

The point is, only one of the two sides in this debate are denying current (not 14th century) science, and it isn't the side you or yucky seem to believe.

No one denies, as your source says, that "neither the health of women nor men is simply a product of biology but is also influenced by sociocultural and psychological experience". That's science.

But trying to dictate that people only use a word in a new way and never use its traditional definition is not science, it's (Orwellian) politics.

And pretending that biology doesn't matter is denying the very science you quoted.

Finally, the major questions about trans rights aren't about science at all, they are about values and why institutions exist.

Do we separate boys and girls in sports because of gender roles (sociocultural), or to give girls an opportunity to play sports without competing against people made stronger by high testosterone (biology)?

Do we separate men's and women's prisons because of gender roles (sociocultural), or to prevent sex and pregnancy (biology)?

Etc.

It's not political. Which programs to allocate the government budget to is political. This is a human rights issue. Extensive research has been done into the relationship between the physical, psychological, and social aspects of sex and gender, and the definitions we use today reflect our current understanding of how these interact, acknowledging that some people's psychological and social selves may not correspond with their physical biology. Refusal to acknowledge these people's lived experience is pigheaded ignorance and rank bigotry.

I agree it's a human rights issue, but it's a very complicated one, and trans rights conflict with other human rights. Sometimes biology matters.

Allowing biological females to participate in separate sports without biological males, for example. Where do you stand on that? Don't you agree that biology (like testosterone level) matters sometimes?

Or in dating, do you think people have the right to want to know the biological sex of someone they date?

I acknowledge the lived experience of trans people but I don't think their desires outweigh the interests of all other people.

And of course, balancing those competing interests is absolutely political. It's just dishonest to claim this isn't political.

This doesn't even read like an answer to my comment. I am genuinely curious, how many genders are there? And what are they, and who determines what constitutes a gender?

Gender and physical sex are spectra. Asking someone to enumerate them is like asking them to enumerate the complex numbers. https://cadehildreth.com/gender-spectrum/

Note that this link presents incomplete information as it seems to imply there is only one axis to the gender spectrum.

I'm comfortable being on the other side of the argument from anybody who says biological sex exists on a spectrum and compares the number of sexes to the set of complex numbers.

As to gender, well then it sounds like you're just describing another word for personality. So what exactly is the difference?

he provided a fact, which is an observation of reality. you provided a judgment, which is a projection of the judge.

Choosing what facts to present, when to present them, and to what audience, is itself a judgement. Pretending its not is deceptive.

selection bias is omnipresent which is why everyone is welcome to add facts to the discussion, as in the case in courts and the scientific method, so that scientists and juries can come to their own independent judgments rather than relying on an Ordained Authority. In science, if there is not consensus, we loop and add more facts until there is.

You're being intellectually dishonest if you think "Disclaimer: this comes from a conservative organization" to the HN audience doesn't have a clear well-poisoning effect. Maybe you should stop and consider who you're really trying to convince by arguing otherwise.

Exactly. Who cares where the data came from. Data is data.

Disclaimer: described as such by Wikipedia, a left-leaning online encyclopedia...

(To be fair, it probably is, but so what?)

> The process of finding a partner—and the struggle it frequently entails—is an omnipresent feature of the American cultural landscape

Ah, yes, only Americans try to reproduce.

It's a completely factual statement, and relevant in the context of the article. It doesn't claim that the same cannot be observed, or doesn't happen, somewhere else.

There are cultures in the world that are very dissimilar to the broader cultural landscape in the US. There are still many, for example, in which arranged or other family or community-oriented marriages take place, and these tend to not have as significant a focus on finding oneself a partner.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com