by Noraika » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:23 am
LOVEWHOYOUARE~TRANS⚧EQUALITY~~ Economic Left -9.38 | Social Libertarian -2.77 ~
~ 93 Equality - 36 Liberty - 50 Stability ~Democratic Socialism ● Egalitarianism ● Feminism ● LGBT+ rights ● Monarchism ● Social Justice ● Souverainism ● StatismPronouns: She/Her ♀️⛦ Pagan and proud! ⛦⚧Gender and sex aren't the same thing!⚧
by Renewed Imperial Germany » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:25 am
by Othelos » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:27 am
by Noraika » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:30 am
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.
LOVEWHOYOUARE~TRANS⚧EQUALITY~~ Economic Left -9.38 | Social Libertarian -2.77 ~
~ 93 Equality - 36 Liberty - 50 Stability ~Democratic Socialism ● Egalitarianism ● Feminism ● LGBT+ rights ● Monarchism ● Social Justice ● Souverainism ● StatismPronouns: She/Her ♀️⛦ Pagan and proud! ⛦⚧Gender and sex aren't the same thing!⚧
by Central European Commonwealth » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:33 am
by Benuty » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:34 am
by United Marxist Nations » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:35 am
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.
by Benuty » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:35 am
Uxupox wrote:My kids are getting the boot whether they like it or not when they reach 18.
by Vassenor » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:35 am
Central European Commonwealth wrote:Yes. And whoever is in charge of Child Protection should go Barnevernet on their asses.
by Benuty » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:37 am
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.
by United Furry Alliance » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:37 am
by Noraika » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:38 am
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.
LOVEWHOYOUARE~TRANS⚧EQUALITY~~ Economic Left -9.38 | Social Libertarian -2.77 ~
~ 93 Equality - 36 Liberty - 50 Stability ~Democratic Socialism ● Egalitarianism ● Feminism ● LGBT+ rights ● Monarchism ● Social Justice ● Souverainism ● StatismPronouns: She/Her ♀️⛦ Pagan and proud! ⛦⚧Gender and sex aren't the same thing!⚧
by The Serbian Empire » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:39 am
by Aelex » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:39 am
by United Marxist Nations » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:39 am
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
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.
by Benuty » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:42 am
The Serbian Empire wrote:Definitely yes. I see it as dereliction of parenting duties.
by Renewed Imperial Germany » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:43 am
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
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'?
by Luminesa » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:43 am
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.
by Romakivila » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:43 am
by Renewed Imperial Germany » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:44 am
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.
by Noraika » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:45 am
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.
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'?
LOVEWHOYOUARE~TRANS⚧EQUALITY~~ Economic Left -9.38 | Social Libertarian -2.77 ~
~ 93 Equality - 36 Liberty - 50 Stability ~Democratic Socialism ● Egalitarianism ● Feminism ● LGBT+ rights ● Monarchism ● Social Justice ● Souverainism ● StatismPronouns: She/Her ♀️⛦ Pagan and proud! ⛦⚧Gender and sex aren't the same thing!⚧
by United Marxist Nations » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:45 am
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.
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.
by United Marxist Nations » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:47 am
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.
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.
by Renewed Imperial Germany » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:47 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Atrito, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Deblar, Ethel mermania, Glorious Freedonia, Gurkland, Kherista, Libertarian Negev, Malmedia, Nanatsu no Tsuki, Nu Elysium, Pridelantic people, Reantreet, The Black Forrest, The Holy Therns, The Jamesian Republic, Too Basedland, Unthank, Valrifall, Vanuzgard, Vassenor, X3-U, Xind, Zucksland
Advertisement