Race is of course a huge issue here, too, as it always is. But comparing to other marginalized groups is unnecessary - there’s no reason to do that, especially when they’re not discrete groups. Somebody’s suffering is not negated by somebody else suffering more. This whole issue is exasperated by charities that outright refuse to help LGBT people, and that when they ask for help, they often get abuse and hatred in response.
That was part of the point I was trying to make, albeit poorly. And I was also thinking about what sort of reaction/support would’ve occurred had the Kenwood woman been black/trans–and to answer my own question, I haven’t the faintest idea.
I’m sorry to hear of any charity action that would fail to help a person in need, regardless of their race/creed/color/gender/etc. That’s shitty and it doesn’t reflect the people I’ve met in the city. At the very least, the acceptance of LGBT people in America seems to be on the rise (Pew Research survey of LGBT Americans).
This is a nationwide thing - I guess it isn’t as well known as I had thought, so I apologize for not providing more info. Charities like the Salvation Army will actually refuse to help people unless they “renounce” their sexuality. The Salvation Army - Wikipedia
I really wish more people knew about this, and completely rejected these charities - they do so much harm.
There was a case of a woman left out in the cold who died because she couldn’t stay with her partner and their child, but I can’t seem to find the information on that now - it may not have been the salvation army and might have been another charity.
Yeah, the xtians and their hangups about sexuality. #notallxtians, natch, but still. Following Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, the relief groups with the heaviest presence in the city* were the Red Cross and the Southern Baptists Disaster Relief. As a member of the former, we worked pretty closely with the latter, and they were badass and they didn’t give two shits about one’s XYZ preference–we/they were there to do relief work with no moralizing.
OTOH, while handing out food and supplies, I had more than one person remark to me that the cause of the hurricane was America’s lack of morality and ‘distance from [Dog]’.
In terms of large groups, the ‘ship of state’ turns slowly and at times imperceptibly, but it’s turning, progressively, in my opinion.
One of the things that got Roger Bacon into trouble with the Church was his observation that everybody sees their own personal rainbow, so God’s covenant must be individually with everybody. This observation was a first inkling of protestantism.
So there’s an answer to the neighbor. Everybody sees their own rainbow, so if the one you see is relentlessly gay, that tells us more about you than anybody else.
This is why whenever someone comes around talking up christian charity, I often chew them out and point to the Salvation Army. Christian charity, especially in the US, but also religious charity generally, usually comes with strings attached. It’s a quid-pro-quo transaction. The charity offers the downtrodden a little help, and in return they demand that the people they are serving must conform to ideology and endure indoctrination attacks.
That’s not really charity so much as putting a vice on the balls of the vulnerable, and it’s a fucking despicable practice. Any charity that proselytizes needs to lose it’s non-profit status. In fact, let’s tax the churches. They’re businesses. They get lots of privileges nobody else gets. Let’s even the playing field. If they can’t support themselves while following the same rules as everyone else, then I guess people don’t think they’re important enough to exist.
Yeah, we follow the “you probably shouldn’t do what you wouldn’t want someone to do to you” rule in this household. It’s actually a F of a lot easier to explain to a wee kidlet (HEY! Don’t squish the cat when you’re hugging him! You wouldn’t want to be squished would you?) as it makes sense even to their ridiculously illogical minds. And the big benefit is that it doesn’t instill all sorts of weird guilt and neuroses by making them fear some almighty and omniscient sky daddy (who is always watching you, so don’t you dare diddle yourself! That’s EVIL!!!).
Hey, I’m not a parent, but I still remember being a kid. And I remember the phrase “because I said so” or “because god wanted it that way” used as answers to a question were the most frustrating and confusing answers ever.
I wanted to know! And those kinds of replies aren’t answers. They’re just another way to say “be happy, don’t think. Thinking is really inconvenient.”
If I ever find myself raising kids (probably will never happen) I’m not going to cop out and take an easy answer over being honest. If I ever have a kid of my own, I know they’d be just as inquisitive and ADHD as I was, and I hope I’d nurture that curiosity and spend time discovering the world with them, doing better than my parents did.
Our policy is to give her the full explanation that you’d give to any other person/adult first, then usually when she doesn’t get it, to give her a simplified kid’s version. You’d be surprised how often she actually seems to “get” the full explanation. Usually she’ll regurgitate fragments of the scientific explanation at inappropriate moments (like telling a supermarket checker that her dogs are girls because they have vaginas…).
If the explanations don’t work then we try to show her via example (when practical). It’s led to some pretty funny situations like me trying to explain the whole day/night cycle in the kitchen with a rotating orange with our house (in CA) drawn crudely on it with sharpie, our friends’ house in HI also on it, and a flashlight… She seemed to kind of get that (or maybe that’s wishful thinking on my part). The recent explanation involving axial tilt that came up as an answer to why she has to go to sleep when it’s still light out didn’t go over so well (it also involved oranges and flashlights [we have an orange tree]). I’m pretty sure she thinks we’re just pulling the wool over her eyes and making her go to sleep during the day.
I’m in my 30’s and still not planning on kids but i had a brother who was 13 years younger than me and this is very similar to how I answered questions with him. He loved that I had answers for stuff like “why is the sky blue?”
I did curb what I told him a little so I didn’t get in trouble if he said anything inappropriate but we weren’t a very prudish house. I remember having to explain a c-section to him b/c of something on TV then explain that’s not how most babies were born but that is how both of us were born.
It was more trouble when he asked religious questions b/c then I’d have to flatly explain what the family believed without sounding too dismissive but without sounding like I believed all of it either.
He handled our Aunt’s transition super well b/c the immediate family was cool, I can only imagine what he would have thought if it had been “explained” by one of the more awful relatives.
However his Dad’s side did make me stop painting his nails even though he cried when they wouldn’t let him have them painted. He had even been picking darker more “masculine” colors. They could not stop him getting into Mom’s shoes.
Of course high heels and nail polish don’t make anyone gay but your Dad’s awful reaction does make it harder to eventually come out to him if you are.
The only thing a dogmatic explanation is good for is brainwashing someone. I believe that you end up with a much more plastic brain/thought processes if you’re willing to look at everything on it’s own merits (or lack thereof). Just hunkering down and defending your stance regardless of evidence just holds yourself (and humanity) back.
Note: It’s perfectly ok to say to kids “Hmm… I have no idea at all how that works! Let’s go look it up and find out!” (which often leads to a fun adventure).
