I'm gay, so my child must be as well.

[United North Atlantic States]

Clickbait title!!!

[Tahar Joblis]

Jesus, fuck. Why is anyone reading the comments on the article and taking their agreement as a sign of being right?

It is not a sign of being "right" in the objective sense.

The fact that you should not be pushing your kid towards any particular sexuality makes me right in the objective sense.

Where the argument ad populum is being brought to bear is on an area where ad populum arguments have weight: Saying that my interpretation of what she is actually saying is by no means a strange interpretation. As you may recall, this particular branch of the discussion started with the implicit claim that my interpretation of the article was highly unusual and could only have come from me.

If you want to find anywhere in that article where there is a sign of:

(A) An admission that she is doing anything wrong.
(B) A statement that she has changed her mind about anything.
(C) A statement that she has changed, or will change, her parenting techniques.

As opposed to this article being somewhere in the range between pure clickbait and fishing for self-affirmation, go right ahead.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Ok, I've been uninvolved in any of the personal thing that you guys seem to have going on, so I'll just pick out the one thing in that I feel like I've got a response to.

Fartsniffage #4: New claim: "Punch to the gut" must mean "change of attitude."
TJ #3: Pointing out the "punch to the gut" could just refer to feeling bad about being shamed by a friend without any actual intent to change behavior.

Is it fairly common, in your experience, for journalists to admit to feeling shamed about their opinions or behaviors, when they haven't already concluded that those opinions or behaviors were problematic and desiring to correct them in some way?

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

(A) An admission that she is doing anything wrong.

"My friend wrote back with a slew of helpful advice, ending with a punch to my gut: “Bet it wouldn’t bother you so much if her crush was on a girl.”
She was right. I’m a slightly overbearing pro-gay gay mom."

(B) A statement that she has changed her mind about anything.

"But I’m going to support my daughter, whatever choices she makes."

(C) A statement that she has changed, or will change, her parenting techniques.

"I’ll encourage her all the way — and work to destroy any barriers along her path, not put them up myself."

[Tahar Joblis]

Since people keep jumping on it, let me point out how ridiculous CTOAN's "five paragraph" strawman is:

What narrative of progression?

She is alternating platitudes about supporting her child no matter what with a discussion of the ways in which she's making it clear to her kid what Mommy wants her to grow up to be. And along the way, we see rationalization attempting to paper over the gap between that principle and that action. We don't see a narrative of progression of parenting techniques or of progression of beliefs; we see a narrative in which parenting is static and unchanging.

Sweet jumped up christ, your complaint is about the order of statements? Your core issue is that it's not organized like a five paragraph essay? She's a fucking journalist, not a first year community college student, they don't use that form anymore.

I'm saying that there is no narrative progression.

CTOAN responds by saying that it's not written like a five paragraph essay.

A five paragraph essay is a template with an intro paragraph, three body paragraphs (each developing a piece of an argument), and a concluding paragraph. This is a primitive form of good writing. It also has no narrative progression. The thesis is visible at the start and at the end. You're not telling a story; you're constructing an argument. (Done properly, anyway.)

There are no twist endings in a well-written academic article. The abstract already told you the butler did it, the introduction told you the butler did it, the body sections told you how the butler did it, why, when, and with whom, and then the conclusion was that the butler did it.

So when I said that there was no narrative progression, I was not only simply denying Fartsniffage's positive claim, I was also not, in fact, ruling out that it was formatted like a five paragraph essay.

The first paragraph starts off by saying she wants her daughter to be gay, and that this (the wanting bit) is frowned upon by her peers. The last paragraph says it hurts to be frowned upon by her peers for wanting her daughter to be gay, and that she wants her daughter to be gay. In between, we're given lots of details about what this means (her trying to micromanage her daughter playing with dolls, and becoming concerned over her daughter having interest in a boy, her friends being concerned that this isn't good for the kid).

It's sort of like a five paragraph essay. "Sort of" in that we can read it as having an intro, a conclusion (agreeing with the intro), and a "body" section of support. It's closer to that format than most op-eds.

I also didn't call it bad writing. That's pure strawman from CTOAN. It's actually perfectly good writing, considering the format and venue, for the record.

[Alyakia]

Jesus, fuck. Why is anyone reading the comments on the article and taking their agreement as a sign of being right?

It is not a sign of being "right" in the objective sense.

The fact that you should not be pushing your kid towards any particular sexuality makes me right in the objective sense.

Where the argument ad populum is being brought to bear is on an area where ad populum arguments have weight: Saying that my interpretation of what she is actually saying is by no means a strange interpretation. As you may recall, this particular branch of the discussion started with the implicit claim that my interpretation of the article was highly unusual and could only have come from me.

If you want to find anywhere in that article where there is a sign of:

(A) An admission that she is doing anything wrong.
(B) A statement that she has changed her mind about anything.
(C) A statement that she has changed, or will change, her parenting techniques.

As opposed to this article being somewhere in the range between pure clickbait and fishing for self-affirmation, go right ahead.

i'm new to the thread but lol give me a statement that parents should not push their kids to be straight or conform to gender norms, just for the record, or just for olds times sake if you've already said it, and i promise to take up arms against the anti-teej army for as long as i can (its 7am though and ive been up all night so don't expect it to be an epic battle)

[Dakini]

(A) An admission that she is doing anything wrong.

"My friend wrote back with a slew of helpful advice, ending with a punch to my gut: “Bet it wouldn’t bother you so much if her crush was on a girl.”
She was right. I’m a slightly overbearing pro-gay gay mom."

(B) A statement that she has changed her mind about anything.

"But I’m going to support my daughter, whatever choices she makes."

(C) A statement that she has changed, or will change, her parenting techniques.

"I’ll encourage her all the way — and work to destroy any barriers along her path, not put them up myself."

It's almost like someone spent too much time reading the comments of people who clearly did not understand the article and not enough time bothering to understand the actual fucking article.

[Tahar Joblis]

Ok, I've been uninvolved in any of the personal thing that you guys seem to have going on, so I'll just pick out the one thing in that I feel like I've got a response to.

Sorry about the distraction. I should probably have ignored the sniping to start with, rather than engaging when someone opened up with an ad hominem attack.

Fartsniffage #4: New claim: "Punch to the gut" must mean "change of attitude."
TJ #3: Pointing out the "punch to the gut" could just refer to feeling bad about being shamed by a friend without any actual intent to change behavior.

Is it fairly common, in your experience, for journalists to admit to feeling shamed about their opinions or behaviors, when they haven't already concluded that those opinions or behaviors were problematic and desiring to correct them in some way?

By "shamed by a friend," I don't mean that her conscience is actually engaged. What I mean is classifying the act of her friend. If you have a friend trying to shame you, it can be painful, even if (especially if) there's nothing wrong with what you're doing.

I'm pretty sure that if she thought her behavior was problematic, she would have identified it, explicitly, as a problem. The lines about "supporting" choices seems mostly like a platitude. They're all over the essay, and at one point she's using that to talk about choosing to become an artist - which is very different from having a sexuality - in the same sense. Then there's the rather perturbing bit where she seems to think that if she adopted a Moroccan baby, of course that kid would want to become Muslim when they got older.

Those are red flags. You don't choose a sexuality the same way you choose a career or a religion, and whether or not you "support" someone's choice after they make it clear to you, you really should not pressure your kids to have a particular sexuality. (Some people have a flexible enough sexuality to "choose" to some degree what sexuality they express, without going bonkers. Most people do not.)

I've looked through the essay looking for any sign that she acknowledges that it's wrong to visibly want her kid to be herself (Mk II), or that she's alarmed for her kid. Everything she says is absolutely compatible with her thinking only that: "I'm doing this thing, and it's not popular in my peer group, but I'm doing this thing."

I didn't even see an admission from her that one doesn't choose to be gay. Which is a little weird, but read very carefully:

The idea that no one would choose to be gay is widely held — even in the gay rights movement. In the early ’90s, partly as a response to the destructive notion that gay people could be changed, activists pressed the idea of sexuality as a fixed, innate state. Scientists even tried to prove that there’s a “gay gene.” These concepts about sexual orientation helped justify the case for legal protections. The idea that folks are “born gay” became not only the theme of a Lady Gaga song, but the implicit rationale for gay rights

She's stepping around whether or not one can choose to be gay. She says it's widely accepted as innate, that activists have pushed the idea, that scientists have tried to find a gay gene, and that innate sexuality is a part of the rationale for gay rights.

Yet she doesn't actually quite bring herself to say that you can't choose to be gay. She doesn't entirely avoid making sweeping statements, e.g.:

If we went to college, we want our kids to go to college.

(Interestingly, I've known parents with Ph.Ds who were totally OK with their kids deciding not to go to college at all and do something else with their life.)

I think you're reading more into what she's written than what she actually wrote. And to some degree, she may have been very deliberate in leaving things vaguer to help stir up controversy - it is a bit of a clickbait article - but I think if you read carefully, you'll find a conspicuous lack of admissions of guilt or wrongdoing. Is she "hurt" and upset at herself? Or is she "hurt" and upset at her friends for impugning her parenting?

As I said before, I don't really see a narrative progression in this article. Between this and a hypothetical sequel article, yeah, I could see that. I just see someone describing a static situation: A parent who will "support" the choice of their child if they can't pressure them into the choice they want the child to make, talking about something that isn't really a choice as if it was a choice to support.

I mean, sure, there are some people whose sexuality is flexible enough that they can manage to "choose" what sexuality to express without going bonkers, but for most people, trying to "choose" a sexuality is a quick road to disaster.

[Tahar Joblis]

It is not a sign of being "right" in the objective sense.

The fact that you should not be pushing your kid towards any particular sexuality makes me right in the objective sense.

Where the argument ad populum is being brought to bear is on an area where ad populum arguments have weight: Saying that my interpretation of what she is actually saying is by no means a strange interpretation. As you may recall, this particular branch of the discussion started with the implicit claim that my interpretation of the article was highly unusual and could only have come from me.

If you want to find anywhere in that article where there is a sign of:

(A) An admission that she is doing anything wrong.
(B) A statement that she has changed her mind about anything.
(C) A statement that she has changed, or will change, her parenting techniques.

As opposed to this article being somewhere in the range between pure clickbait and fishing for self-affirmation, go right ahead.

i'm new to the thread but lol give me a statement that parents should not push their kids to be straight or conform to gender norms, just for the record, or just for olds times sake if you've already said it, and i promise to take up arms against the anti-teej army for as long as i can (its 7am though and ive been up all night so don't expect it to be an epic battle)

Parents should not push their kids to be straight, to conform to gender norms for the sake of conformity, to assume a particular gender identity, or to have a particular religious faith. (They often will have to teach the kids about gender norms, or at least about some of them, in order to avoid having their kid step on the social equivalent of a land mine - it's dangerous territory in some countries. Less so in most of the US.)

[Risottia]

First off my source.
http://tablet.washingtonpost.com/top/im ... story.html

...This mother, who happens to be gay, wants her child to be as well. Her daughter is 6, and in play her mothers try's to enforce a acceptance of gay relationships.
...In her own words, "Time will tell, but so far, it doesn’t look like my 6-year-old daughter is gay. In fact, she’s boy crazy. It seems early to me, but I’m trying to be supportive.". ...

Ok. So a parent tries to be supportive of the sexual preferences of her daughter, and teaches her not to be a jerk about people who happen to have a different orientation.

My View
Forcing your child to be something because you are is bad,

Who would have guessed that a reasonable attitude was going to be reconstructed by the usual Christian extremist into a huge "teh ebul gheys are turning the kids into lustful sex-addict gheys" strawman?

[Tahar Joblis]

(A) An admission that she is doing anything wrong.

"My friend wrote back with a slew of helpful advice, ending with a punch to my gut: “Bet it wouldn’t bother you so much if her crush was on a girl.”
She was right. I’m a slightly overbearing pro-gay gay mom."

"Slightly" overbearing. Note the weasel word? That's where we start heading back into rationalization territory. ("Ok, I'm overbearing, but I'm only slightly overbearing, so it's OK.")

Again, as I said, you can be very unhappy about a friend calling you out for doing something you don't think is wrong.

"But I’m going to support my daughter, whatever choices she makes."

Whatever choice?

Sexuality? Choice? You choose to be an artist. You choose to be religious. You don't really get to choose who you're attracted to.

That's a lot of the issue with this article - she's talking as if her daughter is likely to be able to choose her sexual orientation.

"I’ll encourage her all the way — and work to destroy any barriers along her path, not put them up myself."

Let me quote that section more fully. You're actually only quoting part of a sentence. Here's the paragraph.

Here you might expect me to say something about how, if my daughter were gay, she would undoubtedly face challenges and hurdles she wouldn’t encounter if she were straight. Maybe. And maybe if I weren’t an upper-middle-class white lesbian living in a liberal city, I’d have such worries. But no matter what, I’d want my child to be herself. If I lived in, say, North Carolina, with an adopted son from Morocco, I’d like to think I would encourage him to be Muslim, if that’s what he chose. I’d do this even though his life would probably be easier if he didn’t. It’s also easier to succeed as a dentist than an artist. But if my daughter wants to be an artist, I’ll encourage her all the way — and work to destroy any barriers along her path, not put them up myself.

"If my daughter wants to be an artist..."

Two things: First, we are talking about this as if her daughter is somehow choosing a sexuality like she might choose to be an artist.

Second, the idea clearly visible here in her parenting technique is this:

"I will back her choice of sexual orientation once she chooses a sexual orientation, but I will work to make her want to be gay."

That's visible everywhere in the piece. There's no resolution to change anywhere - just a constant string of platitudes about supporting her daughter's choices while simultaneously trying to coax her into wanting the right things (and so making the choices Mom . This is the way she has done things, as far as we can tell; it looks like something she had in mind before she had the kid at all. And her "coaxing" is not nearly as subtly as she thinks, if her friends have been cautioning her about it.

Is this 100% horrible? No. I mean, you could just flat-out refuse to support "bad" choices your children make, and if you included sexual orientation as a "bad" choice, that makes you a pretty horrible parent if your kid turns out not to be able to cope with the orientation you wanted them to have.

(TBH, you probably shouldn't support your kids' bad choices; support your kids, but if they choose to start dealing drugs, that's a choice... and providing material support for that choice is a really bad idea. Your kid might also choose to spend time with someone who likes to punch them in the face. Discourage your kid from hanging out with people who like to punch them in the face, please.)

EDIT: Quote tree mangled and lost some things. Should all be fixed now.

[Caribica]

I believe this is wrong, the child can be what sexual orientation she wants, lesbian or straight, and it's clear she's chosen straight.

[Mavorpen]

I believe this is wrong, the child can be what sexual orientation she wants, lesbian or straight, and it's clear she's chosen straight.

You can't choose your sexual orientation.

[Tekania]

Overall this woman is not doing to bad of a job, at least she recognizes her own faults as part of the process. Many times parents try to live vicariously through their children, and attempt to sway or influence them based upon what the parent wants; and this one is no different. At least she recognizes the problem and tries to be supportive..... many kid's parents in similar circumstances of being under attempts and parental influence directing their likes or desires do not have support and have to deal with serious negativeity from parents when their desires and tastes differ from that of their parents.

[Caribica]

I believe this is wrong, the child can be what sexual orientation she wants, lesbian or straight, and it's clear she's chosen straight.

You can't choose your sexual orientation.

Yes you can it is a mental disorder and is impossible to be passed on genetically if the theories of natural selection and evolution are correct.

[Mavorpen]

You can't choose your sexual orientation.

Yes you can it is a mental disorder

No it isn't. Also, pick one. It can't be a metal disorder AND a choice.

and is impossible to be passed on genetically if the theories of natural selection and evolution are correct.

So you just don't understand natural selection. Got it.

[Enatai]

Dumb, and certainly the result of what's called "political lesbianism" which widely held that lesbianism was a choice which could be--and should be--engaged in. Ironically this group was the most vehemently anti-LGBT of all the second-wave feminist groups because it follows naturally from that position that gay men (like myself, it should be noted for the sake of argument) are only gay because they must hate women so much that they resort to sodomy, and the thought that they could actually love another male never, apparently, crossed their minds. They were also largely anti-trans/TERFs and rejected transwomen as some kind of secret, invasive agents for men and patriarchy, as if they were actually going to spy on the radfems and report back to patriarchy's headquarters.

Of course, you've blown this out of proportion too, OP.

"All I ultimately care about is that she has the choice and that whatever choice she makes is enthusiastically embraced and celebrated."

There's nothing she can do to make her daughter a lesbian, and it doesn't look like she's doing more than emphatically presenting lesbian relationships as an option from an early age. On the scale of shitty things parents do, that barely registers.

[Mavorpen]

Dumb, and certainly the result of what's called "political lesbianism" which widely held that lesbianism was a choice which could be--and should be--engaged in. Ironically this group was the most vehemently anti-LGBT of all the second-wave feminist groups because it follows naturally from that position that gay men (like myself, it should be noted for the sake of argument) are only gay because they must hate women so much that they resort to sodomy, and the thought that they could actually love another male never, apparently, crossed their minds. They were also largely anti-trans/TERFs and rejected transwomen as some kind of secret, invasive agents for men and patriarchy, as if they were actually going to spy on the radfems and report back to patriarchy's headquarters.

Of course, you've blown this out of proportion too, OP.

"All I ultimately care about is that she has the choice and that whatever choice she makes is enthusiastically embraced and celebrated."

There's nothing she can do to make her daughter a lesbian, and it doesn't look like she's doing more than emphatically presenting lesbian relationships as an option from an early age. On the scale of shitty things parents do, that barely registers.

The fuck?

When my daughter plays house with her stuffed koala bears as the mom and dad, we gently remind her that they could be a dad and dad. Sometimes she changes her narrative. Sometimes she doesn’t. It’s her choice.

[Enatai]

Dumb, and certainly the result of what's called "political lesbianism" which widely held that lesbianism was a choice which could be--and should be--engaged in. Ironically this group was the most vehemently anti-LGBT of all the second-wave feminist groups because it follows naturally from that position that gay men (like myself, it should be noted for the sake of argument) are only gay because they must hate women so much that they resort to sodomy, and the thought that they could actually love another male never, apparently, crossed their minds. They were also largely anti-trans/TERFs and rejected transwomen as some kind of secret, invasive agents for men and patriarchy, as if they were actually going to spy on the radfems and report back to patriarchy's headquarters.

Of course, you've blown this out of proportion too, OP.


There's nothing she can do to make her daughter a lesbian, and it doesn't look like she's doing more than emphatically presenting lesbian relationships as an option from an early age. On the scale of shitty things parents do, that barely registers.

The fuck?

When my daughter plays house with her stuffed koala bears as the mom and dad, we gently remind her that they could be a dad and dad. Sometimes she changes her narrative. Sometimes she doesn’t. It’s her choice.

Yeah, she's overbearing, which she admits, but she could do so much worse to her child. It's a self-centered article, but this is a self-centered thread.

[Mavorpen]

The fuck?

Yeah, she's overbearing, which she admits, but she could do so much worse to her child. It's a self-centered article, but this is a self-centered thread.

No, I mean, what the hell is up with the random rant about "political lesbianism" and being anti male homosexuality or some shit when this obviously has nothing to do with that?

[Enatai]

Yeah, she's overbearing, which she admits, but she could do so much worse to her child. It's a self-centered article, but this is a self-centered thread.

No, I mean, what the hell is up with the random rant about "political lesbianism" and being anti male homosexuality or some shit when this obviously has nothing to do with that?

To quote the article:

The idea that no one would choose to be gay is widely held — even in the gay rights movement. In the early ’90s, partly as a response to the destructive notion that gay people could be changed, activists pressed the idea of sexuality as a fixed, innate state. Scientists even tried to prove that there’s a “gay gene.” These concepts about sexual orientation helped justify the case for legal protections. The idea that folks are “born gay” became not only the theme of a Lady Gaga song, but the implicit rationale for gay rights.

That seemed to imply, to me, that she wants her child to choose to be gay. Maybe she didn't, and she's just not very good at getting her point across.

I'm giving background for people who might be bewildered at the idea that some people who are gay also happen to think that it's a choice that they made, whether or not that's true. It's the background context in which I read it and, I assumed (perhaps incorrectly, please correct me), she wrote it.

[Gauthier]

It's clear that a few people won't be stopped from seeing this as a case of rampant homoindoctrination no matter how much reality is applied.

[Mavorpen]

No, I mean, what the hell is up with the random rant about "political lesbianism" and being anti male homosexuality or some shit when this obviously has nothing to do with that?

To quote the article:

The idea that no one would choose to be gay is widely held — even in the gay rights movement. In the early ’90s, partly as a response to the destructive notion that gay people could be changed, activists pressed the idea of sexuality as a fixed, innate state. Scientists even tried to prove that there’s a “gay gene.” These concepts about sexual orientation helped justify the case for legal protections. The idea that folks are “born gay” became not only the theme of a Lady Gaga song, but the implicit rationale for gay rights.

That seemed to imply, to me, that she wants her child to choose to be gay. Maybe she didn't, and she's just not very good at getting her point across.

Or, maybe you're just selectively reading.

The idea that no one would choose to be gay is widely held — even in the gay rights movement. In the early ’90s, partly as a response to the destructive notion that gay people could be changed, activists pressed the idea of sexuality as a fixed, innate state. Scientists even tried to prove that there’s a “gay gene.” These concepts about sexual orientation helped justify the case for legal protections. The idea that folks are “born gay” became not only the theme of a Lady Gaga song, but the implicit rationale for gay rights.

You do know what the word "destructive" means, correct?

I'm giving background for people who might be bewildered at the idea that some people who are gay also happen to think that it's a choice that they made, whether or not that's true. It's the background context in which I read it and, I assumed (perhaps incorrectly, please correct me), she wrote it.

Yeah, no. She very clearly and explicitly states that the concept that gay people could be changed is "destructive" and hence she doesn't agree with it. What she is ACTUALLY saying is that she feels like the the insistence that gay people are born that way is also bad. She feels that we don't place enough emphasis on the fact that even IF gay people chose to be gay, it wouldn't matter a damn. She's saying that the insistence that people are born gay implicitly supports the idea that being gay is bad, but that it's not their fault because they're just born that way. She's saying that she disagrees with the ways the average person supports gay people, not that gay people choose to be gay.

[Enatai]

Yeah, no. She very clearly and explicitly states that the concept that gay people could be changed is "destructive" and hence she doesn't agree with it. What she is ACTUALLY saying is that she feels like the the insistence that gay people are born that way is also bad. She feels that we don't place enough emphasis on the fact that even IF gay people chose to be gay, it wouldn't matter a damn. She's saying that the insistence that people are born gay implicitly supports the idea that being gay is bad, but that it's not their fault because they're just born that way. She's saying that she disagrees with the ways the average person supports gay people, not that gay people choose to be gay.

Ah, you're right, I missed that 'destructive.' I was reading it in a way she didn't mean, thank you for the correction.

[Reploid Productions]

Yes you can it is a mental disorder and is impossible to be passed on genetically if the theories of natural selection and evolution are correct.

Saying that people who are gay have mental disorders landed pretty squarely in trolling territory. Familiarize yourself with the site rules, and knock it off.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku