DAUGHTER? "Non-binary child", bigot. I literally can't even, literally.
but She Only Wants Pink Dresses
Had to make sure it wasn't the Bee.
Where did we mess up?
When you decided you were mature enough to care for a child. Unfortunately for you, abortion's not yet legal for the 16th trimester, damned bible-bashing conservatives.
Reminds me of the couple of lesbians "letting their gender-neutral child express themself as they want".
Except for the part where they constantly repressed all the typical boy things he wanted to do, games he wanted to play, clothes he wanted to wear, and instead consistently pushed non-masculine things onto him.
P.S. : Funny how, in trying to frame women and girls as special victims of everything, all the time, the author comes full circle ;
Bypassing other 2010 feminists who insisted high heels were made impractical and handicaping to opress women, to insist that the reason heels are deemed impractical for most activities is that society stigmatizes feminine-coded accessories because mosoginy.
Down near the bottom: Yes, just as boys were often put in shorts, girls wore non-ruffly "play dresses" or "sun dresses", that were about as practical as such a garment can hope to be. The reason was that the knees would be the first thing to wear out if you put an active, outdoor kid in long pants, and the things would wind up being cut-off shorts anyway. The "unisex" option of the 1970s were these horrible things called "kulats", that were kind of like shorty versions of bell-bottoms.
DAUGHTER? "Non-binary child", bigot. I literally can't even, literally.
Had to make sure it wasn't the Bee.
When you decided you were mature enough to care for a child. Unfortunately for you, abortion's not yet legal for the 16th trimester, damned bible-bashing conservatives.
I think those parents are a bit older than that.
That's more unfortunate for everyone else.
"No pink, no dresses, sweeite. We're trying to mind-control you into being a dyke. Tumblr said it's for the best."
Reminds me of the couple of lesbians "letting their gender-neutral child express themself as they want".
Except for the part where they constantly repressed all the typical boy things he wanted to do, games he wanted to play, clothes he wanted to wear, and instead consistently pushed non-masculine things onto him.
P.S. : Funny how, in trying to frame women and girls as special victims of everything, all the time, the author comes full circle ;
Bypassing other 2010 feminists who insisted high heels were made impractical and handicaping to opress women, to insist that the reason heels are deemed impractical for most activities is that society stigmatizes feminine-coded accessories because mosoginy.
Down near the bottom: Yes, just as boys were often put in shorts, girls wore non-ruffly "play dresses" or "sun dresses", that were about as practical as such a garment can hope to be. The reason was that the knees would be the first thing to wear out if you put an active, outdoor kid in long pants, and the things would wind up being cut-off shorts anyway. The "unisex" option of the 1970s were these horrible things called "kulats", that were kind of like shorty versions of bell-bottoms.
Was that the correct spelling or could it have been "culottes"?
Probably. I don't think I've ever seen that word written, and for sure I haven't heard it spoken in ages.
What do you mean "She"? Too early to be giving out pronouns, right? /s
Clearly the only progressive solution is electro-shock therapy!
Jesus Christ I can't with these people
Such an ungrateful child. How can she not care about what her parents, the most important people in the world, feel.
Maybe I'm getting more radical but this should be considered child abuse. Or at least warrant a closer look at the family.