This 1994 article of unheuristic journalism is absolutely stupid and the table is complete bullshit. For example under Politics they have

Gay Male Tendancies:

Unpolitical, hedonistic

Lesbian Tendencies:

Political, activistic

We all know this is bullshit, they are both political as all get out. Many of these in the tables are not "stereotypes" that I'm familiar with and seems to be trying to fit a square peg in a roundahole.

Article starts off with some stupid shit about lesbian softball players and faggot sunbathers

What are we to make of all this? What does it say about human nature that so many enthusiasms of the average lesbian and the average gay man diverge so strikingly?

Wow what a fucking stupid and un-scientific statement. It almost seems like the writer is cherry-picking data to try to fit his world viewpoint.

so many of today's auto-pilot articles and paintby- the-numbers newscasts depict homosexuals as merely one dimensional martyrs to prejudice.

It goes well beyond that, the increasing recruitment of gay ideology directly leads to the destruction of the human race.

Yet, this media stereotyping probably stems more from the natural urge of journalists to reduce complex and unsettling questions about human nature to just another fable starring good guys/gals we all can identify with (in this case, "gays"), who are discriminated against by bad guys ("homophobes") we all can feel good about looking down upon. Whether portraying homosexuals as perverts in the past or as victims today, the press has always found it less taxing to preach morality rather than to try to understand reality.

The media's habit of applying the word to female homosexuals is male chauvinism at its most blatant: "gay" is just about the last term lesbians would have invented to describe themselves. As one lesbian activist succinctly put it, "We're not gay, we're angry!")

ONE LESBIAN ACTIVIST! HO BOY! She's probably angry because SHE HAS NO MAN IN HER LIFE and instead must emulate one in a bastardized way to fill the hole in her life (yes, I meant it that way too).

This handy table of tendencies will of course be denounced as reflecting stereotypes.

Completely UNSCIENTIFCALLY drawn (FROM 1994 ALSO) and being conveyed as fact. How many gay lesbians and gays did they ask about this? Do they have any references from previous research?

"So, you think Mister Rogers is more aggressive than Mrs. Thatcher?

Mr Rogers was a Vietnam vet that shot and killed people with his own gun. Mrs. Thatcher is a woman that had to tell others to do it for her.

It's important to note that the different inclinations of gays and lesbians do not follow easily predicted lines. In roughly half the traits, homosexuals tend to more resemble the opposite sex than they do the rest of their own sex. For example, many heterosexual men and lesbian women are enthusiasts for golf, as well as other hit-a-ball-with-a-stick games like softball and pool.

No shit. In a gay couple you generally have one more effeminate and the other more masculine. Same with gay lesbians, one is more masculine and the other more feminine in the relationship.

Many lesbian-feminists deny that their sexual orientation is biologically rooted, attributing it instead to what they perceive as our culture's decision to socialize males to be domineering.

Their sexual orientation is not biologically rooted, that is correct. However, our culture socializes men to be whining CUCKS. This is almost like the 1994 version of "Average male salary is much higher than womens" bitching of today.''

at minimum, there could be a fundamental difference between lesbians and gays.

Yes, one is a hole of what they can become, the other seeks a hole. Consumption of plastics leads to lower testosterone levels in our society and more xenoestrogens being consumed. Women do not have a problem with having lower testosterone themselves but they have a problem of not having higher testosterone males in our society.

By now, it seems inevitable that this strict constructionist creed eventually must be washed away by the ever-growing torrent of scientific evidence to the contrary (of which the research on the possible genetic causes of male homosexuality is the merest and least certain rivulet).

PLEASE give ANYTHING SCIENTIFIC. REFERENCE ANY EVIDENCE, ANYTHING!

Yet, the single event most likely to speed the day when it is politically and socially acceptable to openly discuss the broad relevance of this fast-solidifying scientific consensus that biology plays an important role in human behavior would be a public donnybrook between gay men and lesbian-feminists over nature vs. nurture.

Read this run-on sentence out loud ten times as fast and try to figure out the mental gymnastics it took to write this horrid beast. Also, WHAT SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS? PLEASE GIVE EXAMPLE, I eagerly await any coherent argument.

Beyond homosexual-related issues, this gay vs. lesbian dichotomy can cast new light on many social questions. Fundamentally, as Thomas Sowell has pointed out, almost all American social controversies rest on conflicting assumptions about human nature. Is it infinitely malleable? If not, what are its constraints? Whatever other purposes there are for our existence, we know evolution has shaped human nature to promote reproduction. To study reproduction is to study sex and sexuality. To understand heterosexual men and women is difficult without studying homosexual men and women as a frame of reference.

Is it difficult to study ant getting food or dog howling when leaving the house? No, because we can empathize and understand hunger and loneliness. We have lived these things, they are natural. If you want to add homosexual men and women as studies, why not also include homosexual dogs, cats, and mice in reproductive studies? Do you think you will find homosexual lions and bears and tigers? The number of animals that display homosexuality in nature (and not just dry humping like red rocket dog of passion) can be counted on one hand an they tend to be of higher order of intelligence. Homosexuality does not come from nature, it is unnatural.

For example, feminists tirelessly denounce the fashion and beauty industry for brainwashing American men into craving skin-deep feminine beauty. But which is truly the cause and which is the effect? Luckily, the curious analyst can study people who have rejected heterosexual socialization: among homosexuals, the distinctiveness of men's and women's basic sexual urges is especially vivid. Since "Women Seeking Women" don't need to entice men's visually-focused desires, their newspaper personal ads tend toward wistful vagueness: Attractive SWF, bi, seeking SF, feminine & discreet, any race, for friendship and possible rltnshp. In contrast, the "Men Seeking Men" classifieds bristle with statistics quantifying appearance: John Wayne-type (41, 6'3" 210#, C 46" W 35", brn/grn) seeks Steve Garvey-type (muscular, str8-acting, 20-30, under 6' & 185#, blu eyes a +).

Yes, most women are attention whores and seek to dress to attract attention or to have mates that they can show off.

Feminists' widespread (though hushed-up) exasperation with gay men probably originates in the perennial struggle of the "women's movement" to enlist enough Indians for its ample supply of chiefs. In this battle for the hearts and minds of the female masses, it is the gay imagination that so often crystalizes the misty yearnings of femininity into those beguiling baubles and alluring images that help seduce heterosexual women away from the stern precepts of feminism. Would bridal magazines be 800 pages long without the endlessly creative genius of gay men who make their livings subverting and sabotaging feminism's war on femininity.

Are you reading this? This is just a hodge podge of words. Why are you taking this seriously? This is whole article is just one person's opinion with no evidence to back it up.