Gay Parenting

[Sasaki Kojiro]

better communicators/language skills...

Title: Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis.

Located 165 studies that reported data on gender differences in verbal ability. The weighted mean effect size was +0.11, indicating a slight female superiority in performance. The difference is so small that we argue that gender differences in verbal ability no longer exist. Analysis of tests requiring different cognitive processes involved in verbal ability yielded no evidence of substantial gender differences in any aspect of processing. Similarly, an analysis of age indicated no striking changes in the magnitude of gender differences at different ages, countering Maccoby and Jacklin's (1974) conclusion that gender differences in verbal ability emerge around age 11 yrs. (PsycINFO Database Record © 2010 APA, all rights reserved)

they are well suited to raising kids because like it or not, that's what nature moulded them for.

Men on the other hand tend to be, well... the opposite of that.

You have a negative opinion of men, huh.

Plus they think more logically, are better at science/mathematics,

Title: New trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis.

In this article, we use meta-analysis to analyze gender differences in recent studies of mathematics performance. First, we meta-analyzed data from 242 studies published between 1990 and 2007, representing the testing of 1,286,350 people. Overall, d = 0.05, indicating no gender difference, and variance ratio = 1.08, indicating nearly equal male and female variances. Second, we analyzed data from large data sets based on probability sampling of U.S. adolescents over the past 20 years: the National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth, the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, the Longitudinal Study of American Youth, and the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Effect sizes for the gender difference ranged between –0.15 and +0.22. Variance ratios ranged from 0.88 to 1.34. Taken together, these findings support the view that males and females perform similarly in mathematics. (PsycINFO Database Record © 2010 APA, all rights reserved)

And one of the obvious things, which I think I pointed out in the other thread, is that you can't simply say you are measuring an innate difference. The effect sizes have decreased over time just as the differences in IQ scores between whites and blacks have decreased over time...I would think that this, if true, is very culturally based for example:

and provide a more strict/disciplining influence for the child.

Just consider the changes in child discipline over the last century!

[Beirut]

What's richer and more beneficial about it?

The fact that the during the child's crucial formulative years he/she/it can learn from, interact with, and be nurtured by, both a man and a woman.

Simple, clear, true.

[ajaxfetish]

Women are generally more caring, sympathetic, better communicators/language skills... they are well suited to raising kids because like it or not, that's what nature moulded them for.

Men on the other hand tend to be, well... the opposite of that.

So, would you argue that a pair of Lesbians are the ideal parents?

The fact that the during the child's crucial formulative years he/she/it can learn from, interact with, and be nurtured by, both a man and a woman.

Is it the case, and/or should it be the case, that a child interacts with and is nurtured by only its parents?

Ajax

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Anyway, it's not like that wasn't a fairly superficial scan. But there's a very long history of biased research on the subject, and no clear way to disentangle actual effects from culture, and no reason to think that any of it is important. For example:



Is a "small" effect size of .203. But do you really find it significant at ALL? From here: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/langu...es/003607.html

Which seems to a pretty good site, and for reference:

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/langu...es/003420.html

Is a long list of quotes of stupid things people repeating the same baseless stat over and over...and the stat in question is something about women using 3 times as many words as men (the subject of the above graph).

***********
Basically rhyf, you are using things like this as your source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ays-study.html

Instead of things like I posted and:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5834/82.abstract

Women are generally assumed to be more talkative than men. Data were analyzed from 396 participants who wore a voice recorder that sampled ambient sounds for several days. Participants' daily word use was extrapolated from the number of recorded words. Women and men both spoke about 16,000 words per day.

You just have to get a better idea of where to go for quality information.

[Beirut]

Is it the case, and/or should it be the case, that a child interacts with and is nurtured by only its parents?

The parents are the principle care givers, the people most likely to influence the child's outlook on the world, as well as influencing the child's ability to interact with it.

That being the case, and it is, would not one incredibly obvious benefit to the child raised by a mother and father be the diversity that the child would experience with a mother and father, the two sexes that make up the human race?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The fact that the during the child's crucial formulative years he/she/it can learn from, interact with, and be nurtured by, both a man and a woman.

Simple, clear, true.

The crucial formative years for a child don't have anything to do with gender. There's an age where children have to "cement" the sounds of their native language in order to be able to hear them well at a later age, for example, and that's the kind of thing people mean when they say crucial formative years.

[Rhyfelwyr]

A good question. I could perhaps understand that it would be so if the two male (or female as the case may be) parents shared exactly the same characteristics, and if neither brought anything different to the table...but surely this is unlikely in the extreme. This would also appear to imply that children of single parents are inherently worse off, and that is not necessarily the case either.

And yet I think everyone in this thread would accept that single parent families are not ideal. And I'm not up to date on the procedures, but I expect adoption agencies give strong priority to two-parent families, if they even allow single parents to adopt at all.

Just to pick on this specifically, last time you said this I pointed out that studies based on self report find a large difference in favor of women, studies based on physiological response very small measures, and studies of helping behavior find that men help more. Now you're claiming I dismissed your studies (which you only ever referenced in passing) by claiming that they were by people who had an agenda? I did say that there is a bias towards the "interesting" results in publishing, and it's true, but I said a lot more. The main thing is that in studying empathy, you always have to ask how it is measured. Self report is obviously worthless--you don't get an accurate picture of how people are by asking them about something they want to be, and that's even assuming they know in the first place.

But as I said then, something you always do is that you focus too much on what the question and the answers themselves, rather than being more sutble and asking why people give those answers. Remember when this issue came up in that personality test?

Self-perception is very important. Now you will say the studies also found that when measures more objectively, little difference was found in how caring men/women are, yet I'm dubious how much these sort of surveys can assess that sort of thing. Biology does play a big part in our character, and often hormones only kick in after they have been triggered by actual sitations. For example, there was a piece on the BBC recently about how men get an upsurge in typically female hormones when they hold their young child... that would have been missed just filling in a multiple-choice form, and so that studies are biased towards finding cultural and not biological impacts.

It seems unlikely that there is a significant biological difference.

I thought it is commonly accepted that the reason men are significantly more aggressive is due to their testosterone levels. With the opposite being true for women and their oestrogen.

You have a negative opinion of men, huh.

Put it this way... God help my children if my wife is anything like me. I have a lot of aspergers eg 'extreme male brain' characteristics, they need to be balanced out.

And one of the obvious things, which I think I pointed out in the other thread, is that you can't simply say you are measuring an innate difference. The effect sizes have decreased over time just as the differences in IQ scores between whites and blacks have decreased over time...I would think that this, if true, is very culturally based for example:

Hardly surprising, since as I said biological and cultural factors have complemented each other. As the cultural factors have been reduced, so have apparent gender differences. Still, biological factors underpin certain fundamental differences, take for example the language example.

Just consider the changes in child discipline over the last century!

The particulars change but the basic principles remain the same.

So, would you argue that a pair of Lesbians are the ideal parents?


Is it the case, and/or should it be the case, that a child interacts with and is nurtured by only its parents?

Ajax

If you're going to cut the other half of my point off when you quote me, quite possibly.

[bamff]

The parents are the principle care givers, the people most likely to influence the child's outlook on the world, as well as influencing the child's ability to interact with it.

That being the case, and it is, would not one incredibly obvious benefit to the child raised by a mother and father be the diversity that the child would experience with a mother and father, the two sexes that make up the human race?

Diversity of character, opinion, and outlook provided by the parents should certainly be preferred in order to give the developing child a broader spectrum from which to draw, but surely the question remains whether it is necessarily any broader simply by virtue of having one male and one female parent.

[Beirut]

Diversity of character, opinion, and outlook provided by the parents should certainly be preferred in order to give the developing child a broader spectrum from which to draw, but surely the question remains whether it is necessarily any broader simply by virtue of having one male and one female parent.

Well, as the world is made up of males and females, and only males and females, and the kid is going to grow up and interact with males and females, and form relationships, friendships, and love affairs with males and\or females, then yes, there is great virtue in the child being raised by a male and a female. The benefits are obvious.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But as I said then, something you always do is that you focus too much on what the question and the answers themselves, rather than being more sutble and asking why people give those answers. Remember when this issue came up in that personality test?

I know you said that then! But here you were back pretending it wasn't just a survey of what you think about yourself. There is NOTHING subtle it about, instead it's completely disingenuous and false. What do you find so earth shattering about a finding that "there are stereotypes"?

Self-perception is very important.

It's self report, not perception, but leaving aside that, very important in what way? Anything relevant to any of the topics in the backroom? No.

Now you will say the studies also found that when measures more objectively, little difference was found in how caring men/women are, yet I'm dubious how much these sort of surveys can assess that sort of thing. Biology does play a big part in our character, and often hormones only kick in after they have been triggered by actual sitations. For example, there was a piece on the BBC recently about how men get an upsurge in typically female hormones when they hold their young child... that would have been missed just filling in a multiple-choice form, and so that studies are biased towards finding cultural and not biological impacts.

It was surveys that were the basis for your view...laboratory/etc experiments found a different conclusion. You have it backwards.

I thought it is commonly accepted that the reason men are significantly more aggressive is due to their testosterone levels. With the opposite being true for women and their oestrogen.

That quote was still from the post about empathy right? It was not "in general" obviously! If I remember correctly, testosterone is not responsible for hostile aggression, but that may be about roid rage being a myth or something...there might have been a small effect. It's generally hard to say what the specific effects of hormones are.

I don't think aggression is clear cut either, but for once the evolutionary argument is actually plausible. But you have the same issues with people not wanting to contradict their gender roles, men being in a better position to be aggressive, etc.

In general, for all of psychology, it is very problematic to say that something is a cause. Biological systems are very complex, and it is always an interaction. As an example, let's say you get a lesion on a specific part of your brain and you lose the ability to move your right hand. The temptation is to conclude that the part of the brain with the lesion is in control of your right hand. But if the nerve in your wrist was cut, you would still lose the use of your hand, but you would never say that that section of nerve was in control of your hand right? It's simply an integral part of the system. This is a problem with many studies.

Put it this way... God help my children if my wife is anything like me. I have a lot of aspergers eg 'extreme male brain' characteristics, they need to be balanced out.

Well, don't overgeneralize from your own case. It's not extreme male brain anyway.

Hardly surprising, since as I said biological and cultural factors have complemented each other. As the cultural factors have been reduced, so have apparent gender differences. Still, biological factors underpin certain fundamental differences, take for example the language example.

Case in point for what I was saying two quotes up

There are lots of biological differences. But showing "underpinning" is much different.

edit: fixed quote, also I think the researchers should be concerned that the boys did better in the auditory compared to the visual simply because they don't read much.

The particulars change but the basic principles remain the same.

Huh? Have men evolved rapidly in the last 100 years?

[bamff]

Well, as the world is made up of males and females, and only males and females, and the kid is going to grow up and interact with males and females, and form relationships, friendships, and love affairs with males and\or females, then yes, there is great virtue in the child being raised by a male and a female. The benefits are obvious.

Perhaps it would have been more correct to phrase that "In my opinion, the benefits are obvious."

I don't disagree that there are benefits in having both male and female role models, but I don't agree that they need necessarily be within the household.

[PanzerJaeger]

Well, as the world is made up of males and females, and only males and females, and the kid is going to grow up and interact with males and females, and form relationships, friendships, and love affairs with males and\or females, then yes, there is great virtue in the child being raised by a male and a female.

Well I couldn't drag it out of you, but you seem to be taking the position that children of gay parents will have difficultly interacting with members of the opposite sex of their parents. Is this correct?

The benefits are obvious.

Then it shouldn't be too hard to explain them.

A child of gay parents is at a specific disadvantage to a child of straight parents because ... (fill in the blank with an actual example).

[Beirut]

Perhaps it would have been more correct to phrase that "In my opinion, the benefits are obvious."

Too limited in scope. I'm going for the whole burrito.

I don't disagree that there are benefits in having both male and female role models, but I don't agree that they need necessarily be within the household.

If the benefits are real, why not?

Isn't that like saying a child should eat healthy food, but not necessarily at home? (Where the vast majority of his meals are taken.)

[Beirut]

Well I couldn't drag it out of you, but you seem to be taking the position that children of gay parents will have difficultly interacting with members of the opposite sex of their parents. Is this correct?

I am saying that children raised by a mother and father enjoy a necessary diversity that is inherently better for the child.

Then it shouldn't be too hard to explain them.

Since I have explained it a dozen times, I think the point isn't that it's too hard for me to explain, but that it's too hard for you to understand. Perhaps it's too simple for you to understand.

You sound like one of those people who lived in the fifties, who smoked two-packs a day, coughs non-stop, wheezes up a flight of stairs, and has had two hearts attacks by age 40, but is still waiting for a scientist with a slide rule and fifty-pages of statistics to prove a link between smoking and bad health.

Some people don't need a scientist to explain life to them, they live life and make observations about it using - you guessed it - common sense.

A child of gay parents is at a specific disadvantage to a child of straight parents because ... (fill in the blank with an actual example).

Let the blank be filled!

... because the child lacked both a mother and a father in its upbringing.

[miotas]

I think there is a fundamental difference in both sides of the argument here.

The pro-hetero argument is based on the belief that gender roles are biological in origin and thus a child must be exposed to both male and female since there are things that only men can do and only women can do.

The gender-blind agument is based on the belief that (appart from obvious physical features) there is little significant difference between men and women, that gender roles are cultural in origin, and thus same sex relationships are capable of giving a complete upbriging to a child.

the world is made up of males and females, and only males and females

O RLY?

[Beirut]

I think there is a fundamental difference in both sides of the argument here.

The pro-hetero argument is based on the belief that gender roles are biological in origin and thus a child must be exposed to both male and female since there are things that only men can do and only women can do.

The gender-blind agument is based on the belief that (appart from obvious physical features) there is little significant difference between men and women, that gender roles are cultural in origin, and thus same sex relationships are capable of giving a complete upbriging to a child.

You said: "...since there are things that only men can do and only women can do." I don't think that is the case. It's not what the people do, it's what they are. The fact that a woman is a woman or a man is a man is important all on its own.

O RLY?

Ah, pardon me then, I meant the 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of the people most of us deal with every day.

[Samurai Waki]

What if both parents are transgendered; as in Male=Female, Female=Male. Actually that would be kind of hilarious.

[ajaxfetish]

You sound like one of those people who lived in the fifties, who smoked two-packs a day, coughs non-stop, wheezes up a flight of stairs, and has had two hearts attacks by age 40, but is still waiting for a scientist with a slide rule and fifty-pages of statistics to prove a link between smoking and bad health.

Some people don't need a scientist to explain life to them, they live life and make observations about it using - you guessed it - common sense.

Have you been observing a lot of dysfunctional children of homosexual parents? If so, would you care to share your stories? If not, what have you been observing that demonstrates they're worse off?

Ajax

[Andres]

Apparently, to understand Beiruts' viewpoint on gay parenting, we need to get laid.

I for one will be doing just that until I finally understand it It'll be more productive than continuing this fruitless "debate".

[PanzerJaeger]

I am saying that children raised by a mother and father enjoy a necessary diversity that is inherently better for the child.

Why, specifically, is it inherently better? What are children of gay parents lacking in comparison to those of straight parents?

Do children of mixed-race families enjoy a necessary diversity that is inherently better for the child than those of same-race families?

Since I have explained it a dozen times, I think the point isn't that it's too hard for me to explain, but that it's too hard for you to understand. Perhaps it's too simple for you to understand.

You sound like one of those people who lived in the fifties, who smoked two-packs a day, coughs non-stop, wheezes up a flight of stairs, and has had two hearts attacks by age 40, but is still waiting for a scientist with a slide rule and fifty-pages of statistics to prove a link between smoking and bad health.

Some people don't need a scientist to explain life to them, they live life and make observations about it using - you guessed it - common sense.

Three ad hominems and not an answer to be found.

I almost... almost... had you nailed down on the interaction argument, but you seem to be backing away now.

What parts of interaction with the opposite sex do gay children struggle with? Dating? Working? Building friendships?

You might as well take a shot at something specific because you will just dismiss any research I post to the contrary.

So what is it? What justifies putting gay parents at the back of the line?

Let the blank be filled!

... because the child lacked both a mother and a father in its upbringing.

And the lack of both a mother and a father forces children of gay parents to be ... (fill in the blank with an actual example).

[Strike For The South]

Kids do better with parents
There are more kids than prospective parents
Bringing in more parents helps aliveate this problem
Studies or no studies

THIS 12 PAGE ARGUEMENT IS USELESS

[PanzerJaeger]

THIS 12 PAGE ARGUEMENT IS USELESS

Probably, but I believe that if you are going to tell a group of people in a free society to stand at the back of the line, that their relationship is inherently inferior to others in some way, that you better have a damn good reason for it.

And there are good reasons for putting some people behind others in the adoption process.

Homeless people should not be in line to adopt for the very specific reason that they cannot provide shelter for the child.

Mentally disturbed people should not be in line to adopt for the very specific reason that they could pose a physical danger to the child.

Very poor people should be behind more economically stable people in line to adopt for the very specific reason that they would not be able to provide as high a standard of living for the child.

Single working people should be behind couples in line to adopt for the very specific reason that a single parent cannot devote as much time and attention to the child as two parents could.

Gay couples should be behind straight couples in line to adopt for the very specific reason(s) that ...

I want to hear the very specific ways that children of gay couples suffer in comparison to those of straight couples. If they are so obvious, such common sense, they shouldn’t be difficult to type out.

[Beirut]

Why, specifically, is it inherently better? What are children of gay parents lacking in comparison to those of straight parents?

A parent of each sex.

Do children of mixed-race families enjoy a necessary diversity that is inherently better for the child than those of same-race families?

Gotta admit, it certainly makes for open minded children.

I am lucky I grew up in a family where one of my older brothers was gay and another brother had a best friend who was black. I was exposed at a very early age to the diversity of the human race. I was also educated in French, so I had even more diversity in my life when I was very young. It was great. I was very lucky.

Three ad hominems and not an answer to be found.

No, no, the answer is there. Look deeper, Grasshopper.

I almost... almost... had you nailed down on the interaction argument, but you seem to be backing away now.

Not backing away on anything. I'm right here where I always was.

What parts of interaction with the opposite sex do gay children struggle with? Dating? Working? Building friendships?

You continue to miss the point like a tank with a warped barrel. The point is that a child raised with a mother and father has inherent advantages because the child had a mother and a father.

How and why you see woman as nothing but a life support system for a vagina is ming boggling. Women are different from men, and not just because they have different genetalia. They are in fact different. And as a child has to deal with both sexes throughout his life, in a thousand different ways, it is obvious, like a ton of bricks falling on your head, that growing up with both sexes will be of benefit to the child.

If you think there is no difference between a man and a woman other than "parts", then go see Billy-Bob, turn him over, and have a go. Then go see Sally-Sue and do the same. If you can come back here and tell me both experiences gave you the same "emotional satisfaction", then I will agree with you that men and women are indeed equal and that no differences between them exist other than "parts".

You might as well take a shot at something specific because you will just dismiss any research I post to the contrary.

Wrong is wrong. Deal with it. And in this case you are wrong.

So what is it? What justifies putting gay parents at the back of the line?

Because they lack either a mother for the child or a father for the child. I thought we have covered this already?

And the lack of both a mother and a father forces children of gay parents to be ... (fill in the blank with an actual example).

...to be children who grew up without the benefit of having either a mother or a father, depending on the sex of the same-sex adoptive parents.

[Beirut]

THIS 12 PAGE ARGUEMENT IS USELESS

Indeed. 12 pages of some people not understanding why a mother and a father are important for a child. Who would have thought the human race would ever come to this.

Next week: The Sun! Blessed warmth or evil sphere. Stay tuned.

[ajaxfetish]

You continue to miss the point like a tank with a warped barrel. The point is that a child raised with a mother and father has inherent advantages because the child had a mother and a father.

So your entire point is a tautology? If that's accepted as a valid line of argument, it could be used in support of anything, however virtuous or depraved, true or false. Do you see how some of us could have a problem with that approach?

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

The point is that a child raised with a mother and father has inherent advantages because the child had a mother and a father.

As much as I am with you, I think you just need to expand on this point. Why do you think a mother and a father are better?

Even if it is obvious to you, just list in bullet points some examples of what a heterosexual couple do that homosexual ones can't.

I tried, but I think people were unfairly critical of the studies I gave them, and too accepting of their own. There's a bit of a double-standard where its seen as acceptable to say people have an agenda to exaggerate gender differences. But you can't say they're pushing an agenda with the gay parenting thing, because that's just crazy...

[Beirut]

As much as I am with you, I think you just need to expand on this point. Why do you think a mother and a father are better?

A child is born of a mother and father. The child, when grown, if it is to procreate, will take the role of a mother or a father. And during the life of that child, it will interact continuously with both males and females. Life and human culture exists as a male and female symbiosis. To say that there is nothing special about a child having access to both a male and female as its primary care givers, as its parents, is to deny our very nature in favour of "today's science study". It is absurd as it is counter-intuitive.

(Oops!)

Even if it is obvious to you, just list in bullet points some examples of what a heterosexual couple do that homosexual ones can't.

A heterosexual couple impart both a better understanding of the male and female aspects of human life, and in uncountable and ineffable ways, influence the child through the differences a male and female carry within them. A mother and a father offer a fuller and more complete experience to a child exactly when those experiences are most needed and best learned and retained for life.

I tried, but I think people were unfairly critical of the studies I gave them, and too accepting of their own. There's a bit of a double-standard where its seen as acceptable to say people have an agenda to exaggerate gender differences. But you can't say they're pushing an agenda with the gay parenting thing, because that's just crazy...

The one big diffence is that I am discussing the welfare of the child: they are discussing the rights of the parents. And as I have said, and as I know because I am a parent; parents have no rights, only obligations and responsibilities.

[PanzerJaeger]

Gotta admit, it certainly makes for open minded children.

Do you believe that mixed-race couples should be given preferential treatment in the adoption process over same race-couples?

You continue to miss the point like a tank with a warped barrel. The point is that a child raised with a mother and father has inherent advantages because the child had a mother and a father.

I knew that there was a word that perfectly described the tact you're taking, but I could not for the life of me remember what it was. Thankfully Ajaxfetish has a greater mastery of the English language than myself.

How and why you see woman as nothing but a life support system for a vagina is ming boggling. Women are different from men, and not just because they have different genetalia. They are in fact different.

I see women as individuals, not a homogeneous one that all think and act the same way. I know some women who conform to certain commonly held gender roles and some who do not. I know some who hold traditionally feminine interests and some who do not. I know some who match the descriptors in the study that Rhyfelwyr kindly provided and some who do not.

What I have not noticed are clear, defined, and uniquely female differences that cannot be replicated by males, especially in regard to raising children. Even Rhyfelwyr's study spoke in generalities, and did not attempt to mount the case that women have innate personality differences that no man could ever have.

But as you've insinuated over and over again, I'm an idiot who doesn't get it. That's why I need your help to spell it out for me.

What specific differences are unique only to women that can only be taken from a woman in a straight relationship by her child?

• a
• b
• c

And as a child has to deal with both sexes throughout his life, in a thousand different ways, it is obvious, like a ton of bricks falling on your head, that growing up with both sexes will be of benefit to the child.

How, specifically, will it benefit the child? What specific elements of life will it enhance?

If you think there is no difference between a man and a woman other than "parts", then go see Billy-Bob, turn him over, and have a go. Then go see Sally-Sue and do the same. If you can come back here and tell me both experiences gave you the same "emotional satisfaction", then I will agree with you that men and women are indeed equal and that no differences between them exist other than "parts".

I don't understand. You seem to be saying that sexual attraction proves that there is a difference between men and women deeper than "parts". Is that correct, and if so, are you suggesting that sexual attraction is learned from one's parents?

Also, what if I'm bisexual and get the same emotional satisfaction from having sex with both sexes?

Finally, I am not arguing that there is no difference between men and women. In fact, I'm actually taking it further than your rather topical observation - there are differences between every woman and every man. Every individual is different, yet there are no real non-physical differences that are solely female and solely male.

A heterosexual couple impart both a better understanding of the male and female aspects of human life, and in uncountable and ineffable ways, influence the child through the differences a male and female carry within them. A mother and a father offer a fuller and more complete experience to a child exactly when those experiences are most needed and best learned and retained for life.

What are the uniquely male aspects of life that can only be imparted to a child by a man? What are the uniquely female aspects of life that can only be imparted to a child by a woman?

It is easy to speak in generalities, but apparently much more difficult to try and nail down specifics.

[Beirut]

For the moment, allow me to apologize for any personal remarks I made that my fellow Orgsters took to be insults.

My mistake.

[Beirut]

Do you believe that mixed-race couples should be given preferential treatment in the adoption process over same race-couples?

A topic to discuss, but perhaps best discussed in its own thread.

I see women as individuals, not a homogeneous one that all think and act the same way. I know some women who conform to certain commonly held gender roles and some who do not. I know some who hold traditionally feminine interests and some who do not. I know some who match the descriptors in the study that Rhyfelwyr kindly provided and some who do not.

Indeed. But they all have one thing in common: they're female. Or do females hold no worth in your opinion?

What I have not noticed are clear, defined, and uniquely female differences that cannot be replicated by males, especially in regard to raising children. Even Rhyfelwyr's study spoke in generalities, and did not attempt to mount the case that women have innate personality differences that no man could ever have.

Ever have PMS?

But as you've insinuated over and over again, I'm an idiot who doesn't get it. That's why I need your help to spell it out for me.

I am trying, dear sir. I am trying.

What specific differences are unique only to women that can only be taken from a woman in a straight relationship by her child?

Everything a woman is.

I fail to understand what appears to be a thundering lack of respect for women on your part.

How, specifically, will it benefit the child? What specific elements of life will it enhance?

As the world is roughly half female, as the child was born of a female, will grow to interact, work with, and possibly procreate with a female, it is beyond question that being exposed to a female - a mother - carries great weight.

Walk into a women's lib center and annnouce to the crowd that nothing other than the posssesion of a vagina marks any of them as special.

Then duck. Then run for your life.

I don't understand. You seem to be saying that sexual attraction proves that there is a difference between men and women deeper than "parts". Is that correct, and if so, are you suggesting that sexual attraction is learned from one's parents?

Yes, it is correct. Sexual attraction goes far beyond that simple, yet oh so wonderful, connection of the parts of that fit.

No, sexual attraction is not learned from the parents. But a good deal of how a child will grow to relate with the opposite sex is. Having a mother and a father allows a child a better and more complete view of the human condition.

Also, what if I'm bisexual and get the same emotional satisfaction from having sex with both sexes?

Then you are twice as likely to get laid. Cheers!

Finally, I am not arguing that there is no difference between men and women. In fact, I'm actually taking it further than your rather topical observation - there are differences between every woman and every man. Every individual is different, yet there are no real non-physical differences that are solely female and solely male.

Again, I would submit that if you truly think there are no differences between men and women other than parts, then you need more experience with women.

What are the uniquely male aspects of life that can only be imparted to a child by a man? What are the uniquely female aspects of life that can only be imparted to a child by a woman?

I'm sorry, but if the first twenty or thirty times I explained it did not suffice, I can't see how saying it again here would help.

It is easy to speak in generalities, but apparently much more difficult to try and nail down specifics.

One of the parents is a mother and the other is a father. That's about as specific as it gets.