Fancied doing an analysis of Lexibletheflexible’s argument
Her position appears to be:
- A heterosexual man who wants to date females is not really expressing a sexual orientation issue, but a preference against trans-identifying males.
- Hinge is entitled to define “woman” according to self-declared gender, rather than biological sex.
- Seeing somebody in a dating queue does not oblige anyone to date them, so there is no real harm.
- If people want a biological-sex filter, they should either ask individually or use another dating app.
- If Hinge does not provide such a filter, that is because either the market does not demand it or because the company has rationally decided it is not commercially worthwhile.
The problem is that almost every stage of that argument contains assumptions that do not stand up to scrutiny.
## 1. She confuses the sexual orientation of the person looking for a partner with the characteristics of the people they are looking for
The argument that “this is not about heterosexuality because you are not excluding bisexual women” is a category error.
A heterosexual man is attracted to females. The sexual orientation of the women he might date is not what defines his heterosexuality.
A heterosexual man can quite reasonably be attracted to women who are lesbian, bisexual, straight, or anything else, while still not being attracted to males.
The relevant distinction is not:
“Do you only want to date people who are heterosexual?”
The relevant distinction is:
“Are you seeking a partner of the opposite sex?”
Those are entirely different questions.
A gay man is not confused about his sexuality because he does not want to date bisexual men. A lesbian is not confused about her sexuality because she does not want to date bisexual women. Sexual orientation describes the sex of the people someone is attracted to, not the sexual orientation of those people.
## 2. She accepts the underlying issue but then argues it is not important
One of the most striking contradictions is that she repeatedly acknowledges that a biological-sex filter would solve the problem.
She even says she would install one herself if she created a dating app because it would be useful for compatibility.
That is a significant admission.
If biological sex is irrelevant, why would such a filter be useful?
The answer is obvious: because sex matters in dating.
People do not choose partners using abstract categories. They choose partners based on a complex mixture of physical attraction, personality, values, fertility, family plans, sexual compatibility, shared experiences and many other factors.
For many people, the sex of a potential partner is not a minor preference. It is foundational.
A dating app is not a social network. It exists specifically to help people find compatible romantic and sexual partners. Compatibility filters are therefore not arbitrary discrimination. They are the entire purpose of the product.
## 3. She misunderstands why discovery matters in dating
The argument that “you can simply swipe left” misses the point.
Nobody is suggesting that seeing an unsuitable profile forces anyone to date that person.
The issue is that dating apps are designed around efficient matching.
A person looking for a female partner does not want an algorithm deliberately presenting them with people who cannot meet that fundamental requirement. That is precisely why dating apps have filters.
The same logic applies to every other dating preference.
If someone wants a partner within a certain age range, religion, location, smoking status, desire for children or lifestyle, we do not say:
“Just look through thousands of unsuitable profiles and reject them manually.”
We provide filters because the entire purpose of the service is to reduce irrelevant matches.
The question is not whether someone can reject a match. The question is whether the platform is doing what it claims to do: helping people find compatible partners.
## 4. She misunderstands how businesses actually behave
A recurring assumption is that if Hinge does not provide a sex filter, this must mean either:
a) customers do not want one, or
b) Hinge has rationally decided that providing one is not profitable.
That is an extremely simplistic view of economics.
Businesses are not perfectly rational actors with perfect information. They are run by people, cultures, executives, marketing departments and corporate values. They make decisions based on assumptions, incentives, public relations concerns and internal beliefs.
Companies frequently make decisions that do not maximise profit.
Examples are everywhere:
- companies abandon profitable products because executives dislike the direction;
- companies enter markets they later discover are mistakes;
- companies adopt policies that alienate some customers while appealing to others;
- companies follow cultural trends before they have evidence of whether those trends are commercially beneficial.
The idea that “if customers wanted it, businesses would provide it” is not how markets work.
Markets are not perfect information systems where every possible product exists and consumers simply choose.
Products are created, restricted and shaped by the choices of companies.
A person cannot “just move to another app” if every major app adopts the same model. That is a form of market limitation, not a free choice between perfectly competitive alternatives.
## 5. She misunderstands captive markets and switching costs
The suggestion that people unhappy with Hinge should simply use another service ignores the reality of modern digital platforms.
People are often effectively locked into ecosystems.
A dating app’s value comes from:
- the number of users;
- the local user base;
- reputation;
- network effects;
- the quality of its algorithm.
A dating app with a tiny number of users is not a meaningful alternative, even if it technically exists.
This is the same reason people cannot simply leave every dominant platform whenever they disagree with a policy.
A theoretical alternative is not the same as a practical alternative.
## 6. She assumes users and companies behave rationally, but human behaviour is not rational
A large part of the argument rests on the assumption that people make logical market choices.
They do not.
People are influenced by:
- social pressure;
- fear of criticism;
- conformity;
- branding;
- ideology;
- reputation;
- convenience;
- lack of alternatives.
Companies are influenced by exactly the same things.
A business decision is not automatically evidence that the decision reflects consumer demand.
Sometimes it reflects the values of leadership, the concerns of employees, perceived reputational risk, or simply the prevailing culture within an organisation.
The fact that Hinge has chosen a particular model does not prove that model is what users want.
## 7. She treats “women” as a category that can be defined differently depending on context, but ignores the consequences
Her argument relies on Hinge being allowed to define “woman” in its own way.
That may make sense internally for a software category, but dating is not merely a data-management problem.
Words in dating have real-world meanings.
When someone says they are looking for a woman, many people understand that to mean an adult human female.
Others understand it to mean anyone who identifies as a woman.
Those are competing interpretations.
The problem is not that one side refuses to understand the other. The problem is that the app has chosen one interpretation while many users reasonably expect another.
A platform that mediates intimate relationships has to recognise that these distinctions matter.
## 8. The market argument proves too much
If Hinge’s choices simply reflect consumer demand, then the same argument could justify any existing market structure.
But history shows markets often fail to provide what minorities or unpopular groups need.
Many improvements happened because consumers challenged existing systems rather than accepting them.
The argument:
“if people wanted this, someone would already provide it”
has repeatedly been wrong throughout history.
Businesses do not always identify unmet demand. Sometimes they create it. Sometimes they ignore it. Sometimes they actively resist it.
## Conclusion
The strongest part of Lexibletheflexible’s argument is that nobody should be forced to date anyone they do not want to date, and that a well-designed dating app should probably allow users to express meaningful compatibility preferences.
The weakness is that she then accepts the importance of biological sex while simultaneously arguing that people should not object when platforms fail to account for it.
She also assumes a perfectly rational market where businesses provide exactly what consumers want and consumers can freely move between competing alternatives. That is not how real economies work.
Dating is not a supermarket where every preference automatically produces a product. It is a deeply personal area involving attraction, intimacy, identity and compatibility. A platform that gets those assumptions wrong can create genuine problems for users, even if its intentions are considered positive.
The solution is not to force anybody to date somebody they do not want to date. The solution is to recognise that different people have different definitions of compatibility and that a dating service should provide transparent tools that allow adults to make those choices themselves.