Dan, wasn't the corollary to the "get drunk and adopt" idea that lesbians don't slip, fall, and land in stirrups? Proof of concept.

A very patient re-re-reiteration of your work on this. (The internet means having to always come up with a new way to say what you already said that everybody either forgot or is now pretending they thought of first.)

My favorite bit in the study was the hint that kids who reported facing some social stigma and those who reported none wound up equally well-adjusted. I like that - striking directly at a favorite fundie "pity the kids" argument. No need to pity. We may get snippy (hel-lo!) but not actually hurt.

They do plan followup research on that angle, it appears. But I would love for an apples-to-apples "wanted kids" followup as you and others have suggested...and re-suggested...and will re-suggest tomorrow I hope...

I could have sworn that the first time I read about this study they claimed that many of the kids were from earlier hetero relationships. That's how I came about and also many of the other kids I knew being raised by lesbians in the 80s.

Lesbians who wanted to be parents had a great deal more autonomy in 1985—hell, they still do. Lesbians don't need agencies and social workers and judges and state legislators to sign off before they can become parents. All they need a little bit of sperm.

You make it sound like it's all sunshine and lollipops to be lesbian. Let's just kick us out of the gay movement for having it so easy to make a family. The plight of the statistically wealthier gay man is such a tough one: choosing between the designer-chic interior or perhaps an authentic period colonial with found artifacts at many an estate sale. Do we go for the Mini Cooper or the BMW convertible?

Save it. And spare us. We all have different challenges in the same bigger picture. If you want to say something about oppression (this was about oppression of the gay man, right?), do so without sounding all resentful.

I'm not resentful, TG. All I'm saying is that lesbians have an easier route to parenthood than gay men—and perhaps that cosmic justice, since all gay men are obscenely wealthy douchebags. Frozen sperm costs about $250. The average private adoption costs about $25,000. Justice!

I'm not slagging off lesbians in this post—you are, on the other hand, slagging off gay men. Who's the resentful POS here?

Wouldn't it be great if we lived in a world where everyone had to make a conscious decision to become a parent? Every child a wanted child. What a concept!!

Of the very few gay men with children in 1985 most had their children in loveless heterosexual relationships, relationships they entered into under duress

I understand societal pressures and lack of seemingly available option, but under duress? They were forced, coerced or otherwise not of their own free will entering into heterosexual relationships? Like the hetero police were going to torture them if they didn't sign a marriage certificate, or the straight mob had threatened their families? "Marry the chick or your mom gets it." Duress makes it sound like they really truly did not want to do it but they had to, when in reality they did it because it was easier than being that unmarried uncle. I wonder, do straight men who get married when they aren't in love, because they're afraid of being alone forever, are they considered under duress too?

@10, wanting a child is certainly necessary for being a good parent to that child, but let's not kid ourselves that it's sufficient.

@12 - it may not be sufficient, but there are way too many kids that are the product of people who are too irresponsible to prevent pregnancy in the first place.

How can we expect those same irresponsible people to be good parents when we doubt the ability of even those who are reponsible about the decision to be a parent in the first place.

@11: Not being a dick, just curious... how old are you, Charlie?

Things were very, very different in 1985. People were under intense pressure to be straight, much more intense than folks who weren't around can imagine or, in some case, more intense than some folks who were there can seem to recall. Add to that societal pressure the terrors of AIDS, and... yeah... I'd say lots of men entered into straight relationships under duress, extreme duress in some instances.

Doesn't make it right—and the ultimate victims were, in my opinion, the women these men married, had children with, cheated on, left, broke the hearts of, and, in some cases, infected with HIV.

But in 1985... things were different.

@12 Agree completely. In my case, after having 3 kids who have all (almost, youngest is 14) reached the age of majority experiencing neither pregnancies nor drug-addiction (my personal benchmarks for success), I can say that wanting a child is NOT enough, one also needs a sense a humour, a bad memory, a good babysitter, and plenty of limes for the tequila.

@ 6, 8 - Sorry, Telsa, this dyke has to agree with Dan here. Most lesbians, just like most women in general, have the ability to make their own kids. It's pretty amazing when you think about it. Obviously, that isn't the case for trans women who are lesbians, or lesbians with fertility issues. But the same goes for straight trans women and straight women with fertility issues--who, for the record, don't have a second womb at their potential disposal. Having biological children isn't regulated; adopting is. And once one woman is a parent, it's a pretty uncomplicated affair for her girlfriend/partner/wife to get together the appropriate paperwork to adopt the kid as well.

The fact that gay men - specifically white, fairly affluent gay men - have dominated the gay rights movement in many areas doesn't change the biology here. Though it's worth noting that, these days, lots of lesbians are choosing to adopt rather than carry biological kids. Luckily, it ain't 1985 anymore.

I'm not slagging off lesbians in this post—you are, on the other hand, slagging off gay men. Who's the resentful POS here?

@8: You are, still. What I said in @6 was called verbal irony, Dan. I'm quite aware that many gay men don't fit the oversimplified archetype presented in @6. In fact, all the gay friends I have don't participate in or own any of that stuff. Some have iPhones, though. :)

@16: But I will certainly back you 100 percent here, Dan. 1985 was a very different time, a very hard, very scary time. The music was at an apex, but that was about the only good thing going on in a socially tough milieu.

And if it was bad in Chicago, it was even worse in Houston. And probably a thousand times worse in Little Rock.

It is much easier for a lesbian to get pregnant via artificial insemination than it is for gay males.

Neither groups were adopting much back then.

Hence, the group of lesbians pregnant through artificial insemination were a candidate for the study. The group of gay males was not.

@18: Here's the thing: I hadn't really given this any consideration from a trans angle. And it really wasn't the point.

While in raw, Utopian theory many lesbians could sustain a pregnancy, you and I both know that there are many a dyke who would rather have their teeth filed with a belt sander than use their "god-given" womb for growing a sproglet and, of those, would rather their life partner carry their expected child to term from donated sperm — be it from a gay pal, a best guy friend, or from a branch of First National Bank of Swimmies, N.A.

A dyke not wanting to take on pregnancy in her body is not a preclusion to wanting to be a wonderful, devoted, and dedicated parent. Quite the contrary. It just means they don't want their body to be deployed in that capacity. There's nothing wrong or unusual about this. I get annoyed when people believe it somehow does matter.

Oh, TG. You're so hard to follow.

@18: One other thought:

Incidentally, I have known of some transsexual women —straight, bi, and lesbian alike — who did the bank deposit thing. I never understood why, as it always seemed like a deferred, hands-off, see/hear/speak no siring act — and, well, a bit ego-driven. Whatever reproductive capabilities I may or may not have had a long time ago is irrelevant to me. It wasn't really "mine" to begin with. There really isn't much more to say about that.

@25: No I'm not. I would like to think what I say is pretty straightforward and clear. If I'm murky, ask for clarification.

I just pay close attention to word usage, because it somehow matters to the premise of communication. Somehow.

@25, but you must admit worth the effort, in contrast to the 99% of us commenters who are meh at best.

@23 OMG. I can feel my brain leaking out my ears.

Just because a dyke can CHOOSE not to use her body as a vessel for crotchfruit, doesn't mean she isn't capable of it. The CHOICE and EASY ACCESS TO SPERM combine to make lesbians FAR MORE AUTONOMOUS than gay men looking for a random uterus to get pregnant for them.

To play devil's advocate, this is also a major argument made against the GLBT community.

The CHOICE and EASY ACCESS TO SPERM combine to make lesbians FAR MORE AUTONOMOUS than gay men looking for a random uterus to get pregnant for them.

@29: Uh, that was never in question. But you're also making an à priori argument that all lesbians see themselves as "autonomous" in bearing adorable little sproglets. It sort of whitewashes how quite a few dykes don't even think to consider their uterus to be in "reserves" for such "easy-access", "autonomous" capability. It is a choice, but not one made lightly, nor one to be dismissed as somehow anomalous.

And in your devil's advocacy, you say "this" is a major argument made against the GLBT community. Wouldn't that then just be the G part of the soup, since your argument advances that the Ls (and probably the female Bs) have total latitude? Or could you clarify "this"?

@ 23, 26 - Honey, preaching to the choir here. Yes, plenty of lesbians would rather eat lead than make use of their inborn baby factories - they, instead, go through the rigors of the adoption process, and make wonderful parents. But plenty of lesbians also end up feeling the desire to reproduce biologically, and they're as a general rule able to do so without a problem. Which is precisely my point - lesbians as a group have more of a choice in the matter. (I wasn't assuming that you were coming at this from a trans perspective - I was just mentioning trans women as one group of people for whom that option doesn't exist. Sorry if that wasn't clear.)

As a side note, you have given me a whole new career goal: I want to be in-house counsel for the First National Bank of Swimmies. Seriously.

@31: Thanks for clarity.

I think the point I've been trying to make here is that Dan started his journey on the Generalizing Train and got others to jump on board with him. By challenging this generalization (with the irony of a woefully inaccurate, but pervasive generalization), I had hoped to draw attention that this is a treacherous path (oh noes! the bridge is out ahead and the telegraph lines were cut in the crumbling, so how will the engineer know before it is too late?!) and ignores that it's a whole lot more complicated than we allow ourselves to give consideration.

And I think this is why we tend to run into the same problems over and over again when trying to understand one another. It is, for instance, not unprecedented for a gay couple to have had a BFF who was a child-bearing-capable dyke (or, hey, straight chick) willing to help out her gay BFFs in helping them with starting their family. Legalities aside, this has been an explored path along the way over the years.

Is it harder, generally? Of course. But so are a lot of things. And it's safe to bet that everyone has found themselves in the exception to a generalized rule. But anyway, this has gotten off-topic on my end, so I apologize.

But if you assume the role of counsel for that bank, your job security is guaranteed for life.

Um, Dan...the assumption that gay men all had "loveless" marriages in 1985 is a bit mistaken. Wouldn't you be the first to admit that "loving" and "sexually satisfying" are not exactly the same thing? Sure...there was alot of scary stuff going on in 1985 for the gay dudes, and I was one of them. I had straight relationships that weren't the most satisfying sexually, but they were far from "loveless". I realize, this is not your main point and that 1985 sucked for gay men (and the L's, B's, and especially T's as well) but it's alot more complicated than saying that gay men were in "loveless marriages under duress".

my head hurts. when are we going to be done with this study that proved jack shit?

It bears repeating re: 'loveless marriages in 1985'- Not all gay men wanted to be gay, and it has/had nothing to do with societal pressures, etc. This one just wanted a wife, kids and normal life, hence the religion (promising a 'cure') and marriage to the best woman in the world. Unfortunately, nature/nurture procluded such desires & dreams, to my everlasting dismay.
It also bears repeating that not all gay men in said marriages 'divorced & lost track of their children'.