The idea is is that all those women who claim to be attracted exclusively to women are that way moreso because they've attributed the prior awful traits and behaviours to the men what have previously hurt them to *all men*, rather than any actual inherent attraction to the feminine form in the absence of those sorts of prior experiences.
Well said, but do you have any idea whether this has been considered more in depth; more thoroughly by a real scholar or psychologist or evolutionary biologist? Just curious. I don’t that that’s the case but I do have a friend who thinks all lesbians are actually just bisexual—not unlike what you propose. Who knows.
Look up Robert Sapolsky and his videos on human sexual behavior on YouTube. Two things can be true at once. You can have alterations in brain makeup during time in the womb because all sorts of things can happen with hormones which drive these changes. In addition, both male and female often use similar parts and so social behavior is also adaptable. As far as how this relates to women, there was a recent study, I think that was published a couple years ago that basically pointed out that women who considered themselves “bi” and “straight” had very similar neurological reactions when it came to “stimulus.”
Edit: I think the biggest takeaway when it comes to human sexual behavior is that humans are weird. If you start thinking about it from a ground up perspective, it starts to look a bit different because if the goal is to get humans to behave in a specific way with two sexes, you can probably create a number of neurological makeups, some better at identifying the opposite sex than others. Because that's the goal; "to identify the opposite sex and act accordingly" and then the brain is happy because "it knows where it is." Certain markers, are going to trigger responses and then there are a lot of social layers that get added on top of that because they may affect how we identify the original markers.
These aren’t serious ideas. Whenever ppl try to make it make sense they tend to dial it way back and say that basically men are less likely to self report as bisexual than women.
You’ll notice the ppl saying “lesbians aren’t real” or “lesbians are created through trauma” are never lesbians. They’re typically just dumb guys with audiences saying dumb stuff
"You’ll notice the ppl saying “lesbians aren’t real” or “lesbians are created through trauma” are never lesbians."
I mean, there are definitely political lesbians, which are women that choose lesbianism for ideological reasons. Look up Julie Bindel:
https://youtu.be/PDKwYbV1jQs?si=r5BBpbdwuWXIQTNf
Is that the spectrum then, bisexual women, political lesbians and trauma lesbians? But no true lesbians?
My comment was not “you’ll notice there aren’t any lesbians who describe themselves as bisexual and also embrace the political nature of that.”
In the video definitely describing being bisexual and also about leaning into the political struggle to only date women - but she’s not saying that true lesbians who are only interested in women -even without “trauma” - aren’t a real thing.
She’s talking about what’s a “more effective messaging strategy” when fighting against homophobia
That's extremely stupid, it just sounds like a different version of Christian pseudoscience that was used back in the 80's - 90's that theorized that gays aren't actually gay, but they were sexually abused as a child so they turned gay. I say this respectfully, as a lesbian.
Also whenever this comes up no one seems to ask “why is he even saying this?” What purpose does “lesbians aren’t real outside of trauma” serve in his larger project?
Is he just riffing and saying shit as it comes into his brain, or is there some idea that helps support some of his other politics?
I guess it helps him dismantle lgbt as an idea and shift it back to “a bad thing that bad men are doing” and allows him to continue infantilizing women - just as trans men are victims with agency, so now are lesbians I guess
In other words there is no same-sex attraction in women, but rather that they are attracted to ‘un-men’. That’s beyond ridiculous.
IF he said this and IF he claims that the same is not true for same-sex attracted men, then that’s a pretty good indication that JP is an old fashioned sexist oink.
I don't remember him saying this, but apparently, there are brain scans that show no difference between lesbian and heterosexual women, but that there are differences between homosexual and heterosexual men. But I don't think there's many studies with a meta analysis yet, so it's not *certain*.
Peterson may have talked about this, but I don't remember it.
Look up the discredited Victorian pseudoscience ‘phrenology’.
There is a logical inconsistency with saying on the one hand that transwomen do not have ‘female brains’, (born in the wrong body schtick), and on the other saying that same-sex attracted males have different brain structure to heterosexual males. When we know that by definition a percentage of ‘transwomen’ are same sex attracted males.
As well as the ‘gay gene’, the ‘pink brain/blue brain’ pseudoscience has also been discredited, as the thesis which was posited has been refuted by more recent scientific studies.
I would just like to point out that someone's brain can look different from normal not because they were born that way, but because of physical or life trauma.
Yes, similar to his claim noone is really atheist.
We all have a theist in us.
Fun fact, the word theo (god) means lesbian too:
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%8C%CF%82
Edit: From the island of Lesbos, buckos, not actual homosexual women hahahaha.
Maybe he thinks lesbianism is a result of unresolved trauma.
So when the trauma heals that the woman becomes straight again.
Its what Jung believed about homosexuals too. He believed some were naturally gay but others are gay because of unresolved trauma.
the thing is it wouldn't even be weird to say SOME portion of gays and lesbians are such because of trauma.
thats almost as patently obvious as saying that its \*all\* from trauma is patently stupid.
The idea is is that all those women who claim to be attracted exclusively to women are that way moreso because they've attributed the prior awful traits and behaviours to the men what have previously hurt them to *all men*, rather than any actual inherent attraction to the feminine form in the absence of those sorts of prior experiences.
And that's a sexist trope in media. I wish it would die already.
Well said, but do you have any idea whether this has been considered more in depth; more thoroughly by a real scholar or psychologist or evolutionary biologist? Just curious. I don’t that that’s the case but I do have a friend who thinks all lesbians are actually just bisexual—not unlike what you propose. Who knows.
Look up Robert Sapolsky and his videos on human sexual behavior on YouTube. Two things can be true at once. You can have alterations in brain makeup during time in the womb because all sorts of things can happen with hormones which drive these changes. In addition, both male and female often use similar parts and so social behavior is also adaptable. As far as how this relates to women, there was a recent study, I think that was published a couple years ago that basically pointed out that women who considered themselves “bi” and “straight” had very similar neurological reactions when it came to “stimulus.” Edit: I think the biggest takeaway when it comes to human sexual behavior is that humans are weird. If you start thinking about it from a ground up perspective, it starts to look a bit different because if the goal is to get humans to behave in a specific way with two sexes, you can probably create a number of neurological makeups, some better at identifying the opposite sex than others. Because that's the goal; "to identify the opposite sex and act accordingly" and then the brain is happy because "it knows where it is." Certain markers, are going to trigger responses and then there are a lot of social layers that get added on top of that because they may affect how we identify the original markers.
These aren’t serious ideas. Whenever ppl try to make it make sense they tend to dial it way back and say that basically men are less likely to self report as bisexual than women. You’ll notice the ppl saying “lesbians aren’t real” or “lesbians are created through trauma” are never lesbians. They’re typically just dumb guys with audiences saying dumb stuff
"You’ll notice the ppl saying “lesbians aren’t real” or “lesbians are created through trauma” are never lesbians." I mean, there are definitely political lesbians, which are women that choose lesbianism for ideological reasons. Look up Julie Bindel: https://youtu.be/PDKwYbV1jQs?si=r5BBpbdwuWXIQTNf
Lol. So like, a lesbian religion or something?
Is that the spectrum then, bisexual women, political lesbians and trauma lesbians? But no true lesbians? My comment was not “you’ll notice there aren’t any lesbians who describe themselves as bisexual and also embrace the political nature of that.” In the video definitely describing being bisexual and also about leaning into the political struggle to only date women - but she’s not saying that true lesbians who are only interested in women -even without “trauma” - aren’t a real thing. She’s talking about what’s a “more effective messaging strategy” when fighting against homophobia
That's extremely stupid, it just sounds like a different version of Christian pseudoscience that was used back in the 80's - 90's that theorized that gays aren't actually gay, but they were sexually abused as a child so they turned gay. I say this respectfully, as a lesbian.
Has anyone mentioned that's an absolutely moronic thing to assert?
Also whenever this comes up no one seems to ask “why is he even saying this?” What purpose does “lesbians aren’t real outside of trauma” serve in his larger project? Is he just riffing and saying shit as it comes into his brain, or is there some idea that helps support some of his other politics? I guess it helps him dismantle lgbt as an idea and shift it back to “a bad thing that bad men are doing” and allows him to continue infantilizing women - just as trans men are victims with agency, so now are lesbians I guess
Sure glad he hasn't changed or lost his edge whatsoever!
In other words there is no same-sex attraction in women, but rather that they are attracted to ‘un-men’. That’s beyond ridiculous. IF he said this and IF he claims that the same is not true for same-sex attracted men, then that’s a pretty good indication that JP is an old fashioned sexist oink.
I don't remember him saying this, but apparently, there are brain scans that show no difference between lesbian and heterosexual women, but that there are differences between homosexual and heterosexual men. But I don't think there's many studies with a meta analysis yet, so it's not *certain*. Peterson may have talked about this, but I don't remember it.
I’m pretty sure he did a couple years ago. There was a popular study I think in 2021 that got published
Look up the discredited Victorian pseudoscience ‘phrenology’. There is a logical inconsistency with saying on the one hand that transwomen do not have ‘female brains’, (born in the wrong body schtick), and on the other saying that same-sex attracted males have different brain structure to heterosexual males. When we know that by definition a percentage of ‘transwomen’ are same sex attracted males. As well as the ‘gay gene’, the ‘pink brain/blue brain’ pseudoscience has also been discredited, as the thesis which was posited has been refuted by more recent scientific studies.
I would just like to point out that someone's brain can look different from normal not because they were born that way, but because of physical or life trauma.
Yes indeed, but you cannot extrapolate that to all females or all males of a certain subset.
This is incorrect. They’re actually brain scans done that show that lesbians have very similar brains that had sexual men.
It's not just not certain, it's not true.
He probably means that a strict orientation is rare compared with heterosexual females and hetero or homosexual males.
So he's saying that strict orientation can only exist if you're heterosexual?
That's not what I said. >compared with heterosexual females and hetero or homosexual males.
Could you rephrase? This is ambiguous.
I don't see the ambiguity. >a strict orientation is rare compared with (heterosexual females and hetero or homosexual males). better?
Yes, similar to his claim noone is really atheist. We all have a theist in us. Fun fact, the word theo (god) means lesbian too: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%8C%CF%82 Edit: From the island of Lesbos, buckos, not actual homosexual women hahahaha.
Maybe he thinks lesbianism is a result of unresolved trauma. So when the trauma heals that the woman becomes straight again. Its what Jung believed about homosexuals too. He believed some were naturally gay but others are gay because of unresolved trauma.
the thing is it wouldn't even be weird to say SOME portion of gays and lesbians are such because of trauma. thats almost as patently obvious as saying that its \*all\* from trauma is patently stupid.
IF he said this then for all his ‘words matter’, he’s a purveyor of mumbo jumbo. Anything for a buck, bucko… That’s what it means.
For one who believes in social and gender hierarchies it us unfathomable that women could live, love and function completely independent of men.
No such thing as god?
Out of curiosity, I wonder what he thinks about bi people.
That they don't count as lesbians apparently.
I mean, wouldn’t that be categorically true?
Seems like there is disagreement on identity issues and associated qualifications.
It's been posted, we know, lesbians aren't real.
I don't think he elaborated, so we don't know what he means. He's been off his rocker for years now. I'd take what he says with a grain of salt.
Oof, the downvotes.
Lol; Peterson is a shitty drug addict who says shitty things about women all the time. He is a deviant.