Page 1 of 31

Should families who reject LGBT children by guilty of abuse?

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:23 am
by Noraika
To provide a working definition of neglect and abuse, it is defined as "any non-accidental behaviour by parents, caregivers, other adults or older adolescents that is outside the norms of conduct and entails a substantial risk of causing physical or emotional harm to a child or young person. Such behaviours may be intentional or unintentional and can include acts of omission (i.e., neglect) and commission (i.e., abuse)." [1]

With regards to LGB+ and Transgender youth, there is strong evidence to conclude that rejection, by family, and particularly parents, has severe impacts on the positive life outcomes and mental health of the youth. This impact can either be positive if parents are supportive or accepting, or negative if parents are un-supportive or rejecting.

"[H]ow families respond when youth come out during adolescence can have a powerful impact on young people’s health and well-being...Family connections have been shown to prevent major health risks and are a critical foundation for general well-being for all children...how they react and adjust to their children’s coming out can have a dramatic and compelling impact on their LGBT children’s health, mental health and well-being. LGBT young people whose parents and caregivers reject them or try to change them are at high risk for depression, substance abuse, suicide and HIV infection. And LGBT young people whose parents support them and stand up for them show much higher levels of self-esteem and greater well-being, with lower rates of health and mental health problems." [2]

These negative impacts can carry on into adulthood, with "LGB adults who reported high rates of parental rejection in their teens were 8.4 times more likely to report having attempted suicide, 5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression, 3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs, and 3.4 times more likely to have had unprotected sex than LGB peers who reported no or low levels of family rejection." [3] These findings are continually supported by other studies, whether specifically LGBT+, transgender, or otherwise. [4]

This is of course, not all the data which could be presented, but I'd like to keep this at a bearable length.

My Two Cents is that it most certainly should be considered a form of child abuse. It is clear time and time again that this is something which is extremely detrimental to the mental health, and positive life outcomes, of LGBT+ youth, and is definitely significant enough for this to be considered a type of abusive treatment.

Parents and families must be educated and taught that, regardless of their opinions on their child being LGB+ and/or Transgender, regardless of any 'sincerely-held beliefs' on the topic, they do not have authority or control over this aspect of their child's life, and that it is not appropriate for them to reject, try to change, or treat differently, their children for this reason.

Trying to change, or rejecting, a child because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, has every reason, from everything I can tell, to be considered a form of child abuse.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:25 am
by Renewed Imperial Germany
Yes. 100%, unequivocally, yes.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:26 am
by Uxupox
My kids are getting the boot whether they like it or not when they reach 18.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:27 am
by Othelos
It depends on the level of rejection. Ideally a parent who doesn't agree with/like LGBT people would continue to treat the child the same while maintaining a healthy distance. But treating the child badly or kicking out a child for being LGBT should be considered abuse.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:30 am
by Noraika
Othelos wrote:It depends on the level of rejection. Ideally a parent who doesn't agree with/like LGBT people would continue to treat the child the same while maintaining a healthy distance. But treating the child badly or kicking out a child for being LGBT should be considered abuse.

Couldn't fit that into the title. ^^;
As I said in the OP, we can have parents who don't agree, but aren't abusive, but this is specifically discussing when this impacts the child in a negative manner, which is correlated with higher levels. With that said, the word "reject" can only be interpreted so many ways, and non-abusive rejection would be the exception to the rule.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:33 am
by Central European Commonwealth
Yes. And whoever is in charge of Child Protection should go Barnevernet on their asses.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:34 am
by Benuty
Thanks for making me blind with that OP.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:35 am
by United Marxist Nations
What is meant by rejection? I wouldn't reject the individual, or even their orientation, but I would certainly reject any activity in-line with said orientation.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:35 am
by Benuty
Uxupox wrote:My kids are getting the boot whether they like it or not when they reach 18.

Please you are all like children to me.

I kicked mine out when they hit 1000 years.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:35 am
by Vassenor
Central European Commonwealth wrote:Yes. And whoever is in charge of Child Protection should go Barnevernet on their asses.


Aside from their screwup that was kind of responsible for the Breivik incident.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:37 am
by Benuty
Vassenor wrote:
Central European Commonwealth wrote:Yes. And whoever is in charge of Child Protection should go Barnevernet on their asses.


Aside from their screwup that was kind of responsible for the Breivik incident.

Not just Brevik, but from what I read quite a few more incidents.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:37 am
by United Furry Alliance
Yes

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:38 am
by Noraika
United Marxist Nations wrote:What is meant by rejection? I wouldn't reject the individual, or even their orientation, but I would certainly reject any activity in-line with said orientation.

"Parents and families must be educated and taught that, regardless of their opinions on their child being LGB+ and/or Transgender, regardless of any 'sincerely-held beliefs' on the topic, they do not have authority or control over this aspect of their child's life, and that it is not appropriate for them to reject, try to change, or treat differently, their children for this reason."
- Glorious OP :p

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:39 am
by The Serbian Empire
Definitely yes. I see it as dereliction of parenting duties.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:39 am
by Aelex
No. It's the right of the kid than to chose a life-style as long as they aren't harming anyone in the process but it's also the right of the parents than to not support this life-style even if, depending on it's intensity, said lack of support can be down-right dickish.

Now, as the brother of a lesbian, I myself adopt a stance of "benevolently not giving a shit" because I love her and thus try to don't act any differently as I would if she was straight; but, I honestly don't think I would be as accepting if it was for my own children.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:39 am
by United Marxist Nations
Noraika wrote:
United Marxist Nations wrote:What is meant by rejection? I wouldn't reject the individual, or even their orientation, but I would certainly reject any activity in-line with said orientation.

"Parents and families must be educated and taught that, regardless of their opinions on their child being LGB+ and/or Transgender, regardless of any 'sincerely-held beliefs' on the topic, they do not have authority or control over this aspect of their child's life, and that it is not appropriate for them to reject, try to change, or treat differently, their children for this reason."
- Glorious OP :p

That doesn't really answer the question. If I were to try to maintain a child's celibacy or to prevent them from undergoing sexual reassignment until adulthood (and disown them in the event that they were to do the latter after the age of 18), would I be considered 'abusive'?

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:42 am
by Benuty
The Serbian Empire wrote:Definitely yes. I see it as dereliction of parenting duties.

Back in my day we could just claim the child as a bastard. Thus freeing us of caring for them.

Surprised no one has thought of that.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:43 am
by Renewed Imperial Germany
United Marxist Nations wrote:
Noraika wrote:"Parents and families must be educated and taught that, regardless of their opinions on their child being LGB+ and/or Transgender, regardless of any 'sincerely-held beliefs' on the topic, they do not have authority or control over this aspect of their child's life, and that it is not appropriate for them to reject, try to change, or treat differently, their children for this reason."
- Glorious OP :p

That doesn't really answer the question. If I were to try to maintain a child's celibacy or to prevent them from undergoing sexual reassignment until adulthood (and disown them in the event that they were to do the latter after the age of 18), would I be considered 'abusive'?


The bolded part is extremely abusive.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:43 am
by Luminesa
Noraika wrote:
Othelos wrote:It depends on the level of rejection. Ideally a parent who doesn't agree with/like LGBT people would continue to treat the child the same while maintaining a healthy distance. But treating the child badly or kicking out a child for being LGBT should be considered abuse.

Couldn't fit that into the title. ^^;
As I said in the OP, we can have parents who don't agree, but aren't abusive, but this is specifically discussing when this impacts the child in a negative manner, which is correlated with higher levels. With that said, the word "reject" can only be interpreted so many ways, and non-abusive rejection would be the exception to the rule.

I mean, a parent telling a child "no" is going to impact them negatively no matter what the situation is. Kids just don't like being told "no". But that's not abuse. The idea is, "Is the parent going to be loving and caring of their child, even though they disagree on [insert disagreement here], or are they going to try and bring them down verbally or physically because of [insert disagreement here]." Because there's nothing inherently wrong with saying, "I disagree with what you're doing, but if you ever run into trouble in life, I'll always be here to give you hugs and bake you cookies and love you."

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:43 am
by Romakivila
It depends, but in most cases sure. However I'm concerned that by doing this you go down a slippery slope when intervening with parenting.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:44 am
by Renewed Imperial Germany
Aelex wrote:No. It's the right of the kid than to chose a life-style as long as they aren't harming anyone in the process but it's also the right of the parents than to not support this life-style even if, depending on it's intensity, said lack of support can be down-right dickish.

Now, as the brother of a lesbian, I myself adopt a stance of "benevolently not giving a shit" because I love her and thus try to don't act any differently as I would if she was straight; but, I honestly don't think I would be as accepting if it was for my own children.


Parents have no right to harm their children, and no-one 'chooses' to be LGBTQIA.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:45 am
by Noraika
Aelex wrote:No. It's the right of the kid than to chose a life-style as long as they aren't harming anyone in the process but it's also the right of the parents than to not support this life-style even if, depending on it's intensity, said lack of support can be down-right dickish.

Now, as the brother of a lesbian, I myself adopt a stance of "benevolently not giving a shit" because I love her and thus try to don't act any differently as I would if she was straight; but, I honestly don't think I would be as accepting if it was for my own children.

And how does the impact that parental rejection has on the child not fall within the legal definitions of abuse, given its emotional and psychological impact?

United Marxist Nations wrote:That doesn't really answer the question. If I were to try to maintain a child's celibacy or to prevent them from undergoing sexual reassignment until adulthood (and disown them in the event that they were to do the latter after the age of 18), would I be considered 'abusive'?

A parent refusing to allow their child to receive treatment which is medically necessary (which is what transitioning is), is entirely abusive, becuase it compromises the health of the child for the 'preferences' of the parents. The medical standards of care quite clearly state, in the WPATH Standards of Care v7, that even "withholding puberty suppression and subsequent feminizing or masculinizing hormone therapy is not a neutral option for adolescents." and that such a decision is not the parent's right to do.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:45 am
by United Marxist Nations
Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:
United Marxist Nations wrote:That doesn't really answer the question. If I were to try to maintain a child's celibacy or to prevent them from undergoing sexual reassignment until adulthood (and disown them in the event that they were to do the latter after the age of 18), would I be considered 'abusive'?


The bolded part is extremely abusive.

How? I don't technically have legal obligation to them at that point, so, if they do something that they can't take back, and which violates my religious beliefs, why shouldn't I disown them?

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:47 am
by United Marxist Nations
Noraika wrote:
Aelex wrote:No. It's the right of the kid than to chose a life-style as long as they aren't harming anyone in the process but it's also the right of the parents than to not support this life-style even if, depending on it's intensity, said lack of support can be down-right dickish.

Now, as the brother of a lesbian, I myself adopt a stance of "benevolently not giving a shit" because I love her and thus try to don't act any differently as I would if she was straight; but, I honestly don't think I would be as accepting if it was for my own children.

And how does the impact that parental rejection has on the child not fall within the legal definitions of abuse, given its emotional and psychological impact?

United Marxist Nations wrote:That doesn't really answer the question. If I were to try to maintain a child's celibacy or to prevent them from undergoing sexual reassignment until adulthood (and disown them in the event that they were to do the latter after the age of 18), would I be considered 'abusive'?

A parent refusing to allow their child to receive treatment which is medically necessary (which is what transitioning is), is entirely abusive, becuase it compromises the health of the child for the 'preferences' of the parents. The medical standards of care quite clearly state, in the WPATH Standards of Care v7, that even "withholding puberty suppression and subsequent feminizing or masculinizing hormone therapy is not a neutral option for adolescents." and that such a decision is not the parent's right to do.

In that case, I would rather just let the state take them off my hands if they were to transition against my will.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:47 am
by Renewed Imperial Germany
United Marxist Nations wrote:
Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:
The bolded part is extremely abusive.

How? I don't technically have legal obligation to them at that point, so, if they do something that they can't take back, and which violates my religious beliefs, why shouldn't I disown them?


Because, they are still your child, and disowning them is more or less telling them 'you don't matter to me.' Religion of love my ass.