Outside of religion people who are anti-{alphabet} are just sheltered
Ya’ll, transgender people existed in the 90s (and before). They were using whatever bathroom they wanted
You survived
They have existed throughout all of time. It’s not like it’s a new fad.
Alternatively, you can have children and rent them to the wealthy as a way to get ahead. Odds are they won’t be coming back from too many of the big parties, so it’s not too much of a long term commitment.
Try to live your life in such a way that you don’t create a human being with a large portion of their personality shaped by how much they don’t like you.
I mean I’m disabled. I’ve met the children and grandchildren of disabled adults. I have met one, only one, that didn’t viscerally hate their parents and grandparents. Big reason why I don’t have any.
There are many reasons that you may be unable to properly care for a child. Many of them are not your fault, but it’s still important to know your limits and not make them someone else’s problem unnecessarily. Kudos on that.
thank you. I’ve dealt with most of my demons around the issue, but i very rarely get validation on any of it. folk like you are why the fediverse is one of my favorite places.
Yeppp children are born into their very own beings no matter how much a parent may want to control who they become. It’s our job to accept them for who they are and respect their journey.
It’s our job to accept them for who they are and respect their journey.
In a more general sense, it’s our job to guide them, then give them the tools to guide themselves, and it’s hard as heck.
I have 2 daughters, 6 and 8 years old, and I couldn’t care less who or how they’ll love one day. As long as they are happy. Who am I to deny them happiness?! If I had 2 boys, I’d say the exact same thing.
I’ll never understand people thinking otherwise.
You are definitely a good person for [email protected]
Or you raise your kids the way that they see gender as a complete societal construct and simply don’t give a fucking shit about labels
I know this is a whataboutism, and I fully support trans people, but what’s the acceptable circumstance to disown your kids; when you find them torturing animals for the third time? if they become a psycho murderer, despite, or because of, all your loving acceptance?
I mean, there’s a kid who grew up down the street. He pitched for the brewers. When he came outside at four years old and threw his older brother’s hamster across the street (to see if it could fly he said, and for a brief glorious second it could remember he pitched for the brewers?) the whole neighborhood apparatus went into play. All us older neighborhood kids, even the gang members and criminals, it didn’t matter we looked after and out for him. Like the gang just sold weed. They weren’t killing people (much) and wanted to keep it that way. We didn’t want another zodiac killer. And he turned out all right. Became a functioning fungible member of society. More than me. Pitched for the brewers and all. So to answer your question it takes more than one animal.
I’d say that you have at least a minimal duty to them until they’re 18, no matter what. Even if they’re in prison for killing your other child, for a really extreme example, you have a duty to ensure that they’re safe and their needs are being met as well as possible. You don’t have to shelter them from the police or anything, and I can understand if you no longer feel love for them, but you’re responsible for getting them to adulthood as best you can.
Of course, I wouldn’t judge anyone actually in that situation for disowning their child (or any number of other reactions that I would consider ethically wrong, but that’s because they’re in a truly awful situation and it makes sense to go a little crazy), but it’s the moral ideal I would shoot for.
If you raise a murderer before the age of 18, then you might deserve some of the blame. I think parents and other older individuals should be responsible for the actions of youths. If your kid breaks something, you pay it. If you enlist 13-15 year olds for murders (yes, this is very prevelant in Europe at the moment), you should be responsible for the crime.
If they’re in prison for an offense that truly justifies it, then they’re the in state’s custody, not yours.
If my child killed their sibling with intent and not some tragic accident they’d be dead to me too.
They’re definitely in the state’s custody, though depending on where they are and whether they have anyone paying attention to what happens to them, that can mean abominable “care.” Again, I wouldn’t judge anyone for turning their back on the person who killed their child, but I think that I would feel an obligation to try to make sure my child wasn’t beaten or starved in prison.
I would disown my kid for being a murderer if it was not for reason of insanity or self protection or otherwise justifiable, yes. Or a torturer, etc. There are certain extreme moral lines that I would have to acknowledge that my child as I knew them did not exist. But they are certainly of the most extreme, it would be very difficult to do so, and it would be very rare circumstances.
There are serial killers who aren’t insane?
Depends on your definition of sanity I suppose, but legally? Yea, most of them are sane.
There’s legal definitions and whatnot but my definition is more like “is there something deeply wrong with you?” Which a serial killer clears with ease.
What if they objectively made the world a better place? E.g. they were picking off the billionaires?
You’re just describing the premise for the book/show Dexter.
There’s a lot deeply wrong with me but I’m still not clinically insane. Insane people genuinely don’t have control over their actions thus cannot be held to account, only put away for public safety. I think calling serial killers insane both absolves them of responsibility and dilutes the meaning of the word for people actually suffering serious mental illnesses.
“Deeply” is both present in what I wrote and also subjective. I don’t think “insane” implies no control exactly. These things are more complicated than that.
A person experiencing a fullblown psychotic episode is beyond the point of self control, and frequently self recognition. It’s a seriously rare occurrence, and it usually doesn’t result in the death of anyone but the sufferer. I just think the distinction should be made between people who may be highly disturbed or psychopathic, or on a revenge streak or whatever reason they have, and people suffering a very serious mental illness that in the midst of an episode wound up killing somebody.
Yes
Children lack a fully developed identity of self, and that is normal. It’s normal to have questions, to be curious, to learn new ways of looking at the world. We shouldn’t tell children to think one way or another, but to teach them of everything, and to be critical of information they receive. In my eyes, all kids are trans, in the sense they are in a transitional state of being, becoming who they might or might not become.
Let kids be free, without labels and categorizations, but don’t forget they haven’t yet grown to become who they are just yet. Change is normal.
I agree, its only when they grow up to become teenagers when they become more aware and develop a firmer stance about their sexuality and identity. Until then they are transitioning - forward to whatever they believe they are.
The best thing is education because without it we will remain with people which are clueless about their true identity.
Thank you for saying this!! It is incredibly important that we continue to say these sorts of things!!!
Even people without kids should be accepting of queer and trans kids. They don’t get a pass to be bigots just because they don’t have kids
Sooooo this is implying trans != queer? lol
Completely unrelated but I misread your instance name as “redhat.com” at first
That’s not how language works. Language isn’t as systematic as you seem to assume. The meme is being inclusive, distancing from LGB groups by explicitly mentioning trans
I think the meme is just trying to be inclusive
- (colloquial, sometimes derogatory) Homosexual. [from 19th c.]
- (colloquial, sometimes derogatory) Non-heterosexual or non-cisgender: homosexual, bisexual, asexual, transgender, etc.
- (loosely) Pertaining to sexual or gender behaviour or identity which does not conform to conventional heterosexual or cisgender norms, assumptions etc. [from 20th c.]
- (dated) Strange, odd or different; whimsical. [from 16th c.]
(…)
It is already inclusive.
It depends on how you define queer.
Again, I think the intent of the post is positive and inclusive. It’s ok if we just take it at face value.
You learn a lot about a toad when you dissect it but it dies in the process
