I think it's worse when you're single and really have no plans on having kids. It's just one of those things that make it hard to socialize since the common activities aren't going to align as often, either. That's been my experience so far.

For kids, the OP had point 3: "The solution for getting together with friends when you have small kids is other people with kids the same age who can play together."

What he forgot to mention was point 3a: "The solution, when you have kids, for dealing with friends who have no kids, is to kick their asses out of your friends network". It's closely related to point 3b: "The solution, when you're married, for dealing with friends who stay perpetually single, is to kick their asses out of your friends network".

Note, I'm not promoting this behavior, I'm just pointing out, from observation, that this is how people behave.

My experience, as someone who has no kids and is unlikely to have any, is that the only way to socialize is to move into a big city where there's a bunch of other ~35-45+yo people with no kids. Otherwise, you're going to be a very lonely person, because you simply will not fit into any other social group.

"is that the only way to socialize is to move into a big city where there's a bunch of other ~35-45+yo people with no kids" - or you could find / join a group with similar interests. A local LUG, sports group, music... whatever floats your boat. For example, I have found it pretty easy to make new friends through mountain biking and track building in my new area.

It's a bit worse when you're trans and come from the Bible belt (moved to Minneapolis for better opportunities). Both of those seem to make a bit of an outcast even among the LGBT community (seems any hint of social conservative values is frowned upon around here).

Ok, I gotta ask: how can you be both trans and even a little bit socially conservative? Economically conservative, sure (Log Cabin Republicans do exist after all), but socially? Social conservatism these days seems to center on being anti-gay, with a big dose of evangelicalism, so I can't imagine how you can support that and be trans.

1. I oppose drug use (don't support drug laws, though).

2. I oppose sex outside of marriage.

3. I do believe in some concept of a God (not necessarily Christian).

4. I oppose most "social justice" movements.

So, yeah I think I'm fairly conservative. I think 2 and 4 are what get the most flak in the LGBT community, especially 4 since all I support is non-discrimination laws like ENDA and anything beyond that is redundant. For example, I think badgering someone like Brendan Eich for being a devout Mormon and putting some of his private funds into a pro-Prop-8 PAC is stupid. Basically, all social justice stuff and "call-outs" are pointless when the real issue is how the State and corporate actors are allowed to behave under the law. I don't care if Eich thinks I'm going to Hell. All I care about is will he conform to the law when it doesn't favor him in discrimination? Beyond that, I don't care as to his personal values. So, I get lots of static for that particular view point.

Let's not downvote a guy for asking what appears to be an honest question. I'm curious about this too. I suspect the question comes from a different interpretation of what 'social conservative values' means, so an explanation would be valuable.

> If you're in an new area and many people in these groups already know each other, then you're going to be responsible for making the effort to get to know them.

I never understood this mindset. From a sheer work perspective, it's easier for ten people in an established group to make a small effort to the new person than it is for that new person to make the same (or even less) effort toward all ten. And from a psychological perspective, they're already in an unfamiliar environment and likely without any friends or family. It's much more humane for the established folks to reach out to the new people.

I have about twenty friends that I regularly do things with. But only 3 of us organize 90% of our activities. A new person is a burden on that core group. We try, but some folks make it hard to bring them in. If they don't rsvp, or use nonstandard communication methods it makes it hard. They don't have to reach out, but they have to respond or after a while we quit trying.

Well, there's a little more to it than that. First off, there's the diffusion of responsibility. The more people there are that can make an invite, the more people assume somebody else would do it. Then there's the group dynamic factor. If anybody in the group has any issue with you, other people can feel awkward about inviting you. The last is the benefit factor. The benefit of getting more ingrained to the community for somebody who isn't established is for the person who isn't established. The people already ingrained have their routine, so their incentive to keep making overtures isn't nearly as strong as your desire for those overtures.

Basic economics (supply and demand) explain a lot of phenomenons: you need them more than they need you.