Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Generally I agree, but one situation where I would have trouble is if somebody insisted that I call her or him "they" or "them." It is preposterous to me and takes things much too far. And if I were in the company of someone who does that which I really am not) I would just politely say "I'm very sorry but I really can't do that." I'm a moderate but IMO we need to put the brakes on certain things and IMO that is one of them.
I work with a ton of young people and thankfully none of them do that. May be against the company's policy to discuss things like that on the job. I really don't know.
I agree in the sense that accepting someone as a human being with failings, triumphs and aspirations, as I, doesn't mean allowing them to dictate to me what I am allowed to do or think.
Loving someone or accepting them is not incompatible with sometimes not liking what they do or think. I think of the childish demands immature people make, "If you loved me you would do this or that." That's attempt to control, not acceptance.
Generally I agree, but one situation where I would have trouble is if somebody insisted that I call her or him "they" or "them." It is preposterous to me and takes things much too far. And if I were in the company of someone who does that which I really am not) I would just politely say "I'm very sorry but I really can't do that." I'm a moderate but IMO we need to put the brakes on certain things and IMO that is one of them.
How is it going too far to call people what they want to be called? If you met someone whose drivers license said her name was Roberta, and she asked you to call her "Gigi", would that be preposterous, or would you do it? It's a sign of respect, and it takes very little effort.
That's different. My specific resistance has to do with the fact that they do not consider themselves a her or a him. Like I said, I think it's taking it too far. People are either a her or a him - not a they or them. I feel utterly ridiculous referring to somebody as them or they when I can just as easily say her or him as always. YMMV.
Someone SUGGESTING you call them "Gigi" instead of "Regina" is a request and not a demand. I doub "Gigi" would have a meltdown if you forgot or didn't note it and called her "Regina."
Whereas "call me they" is generally a demand and militant one. I would probably opt to just not call you anything unless I had to, and then it would be your "birth gender," because that's what you biologically, anatomically, and chromosomally are.
Also, when you refer to someone as "he or she" or "him or her," it's in the third person, meaning you're not present at the time, so how could you be offended?
Whereas "call me they" is generally a demand and militant one. I would probably opt to just not call you anything unless I had to, and then it would be your "birth gender," because that's what you biologically, anatomically, and chromosomally are.
I work in an environment and know several nonbinary people who use "they/them" pronouns, and they're not actually not militant about it at all. Their pronouns are in their email signatures and their Zoom windows, and they introduce themselves with "Hi, I'm Alex and I use they/them pronouns." The most militant people I've seen are the people who won't won't make an effort and are rude in the meantime. You don't have to understand why people want to use different pronouns, but it's a really easy way to respect someone that hurts no one at all.
That's different. My specific resistance has to do with the fact that they do not consider themselves a her or a him. Like I said, I think it's taking it too far. People are either a her or a him - not a they or them. I feel utterly ridiculous referring to somebody as them or they when I can just as easily say her or him as always. YMMV.
For me that one is, "Well, I like you enough to try." If that person were my kid or a good friend or something. I'm willing to accept when someone has a preference even if it's not the most comfortable thing in the world to wrap my head around, but acting as though it is an ACT OF LITERAL VIOLENCE if someone messes it up or can't or won't deal with it, like it's some sort of mortal injury? Sheesh. We have bigger problems, really, all of us, I'm sure of it.
I think that the reason it feels uncomfortable to me sometimes, though, is not the genderlessness of it or even the common usage in the plural. In French they have two sets of words for "you" and the difference is a more intimate, "tu" for someone you know, or a more formal "vous" for someone you don't know. To me, the singular "they" is used when we refer to a hypothetical person whose gender is unknown or immaterial to the situation.
"If I saw a stranger sneeze, I might assume that they had a cold or allergy." In that sentence, "they" is one person but it's an abstract person. It's used because we don't know them and don't know their gender. But if we are saying that Bob or Frank or Suzie sneezed, like...one assumes we know a little more detail there? That we would not depersonalize them with an abstract pronoun?
In away, it reminds me of the formal, "vous." It puts a person at a remove, into the abstract, in a way that doesn't feel natural to do when we know who they are.
But anyhow.
Well, so the OP's situation gets stickier and stickier. So we have a 44 year old who has disabilities severe enough to make him unable (as far as he knows) to survive independently, yet who is not under any kind of professional treatment, which one can reasonably assume means that he also does not get any disability benefits or coverage from the government. One hopes that his family is super wealthy and there's a trust. If not, then holy moly does he have bigger issues than who his Mom's friends are.
And the new wrinkle in the crinkle, he is also a conservative. Not saying I have a problem with that (would be irrelevant if I did) but I would hope that he'd have some notion that other people who are accepting of both LGBTQ+/bisexuality and political conservatism at the same time...? On top of the thing that brought this thread about in the first place, the question of who will care for him when his Mom is gone, which is a tiny pool of possibility to begin with. I mean, you're looking for a unicorn here.
If your Mom is only allowed to be friends with people who meet all 3 of these criteria, you're basically saying that your Mom is not allowed to have friends.
Or else you need to get cozy with the reality that it's none of your damn business who your Mom is friends with, and if you're very lucky she will find someone to care for you when she's gone, who will make sure you've got food to eat and won't actively harm you. And if you insist, then, on trying to shove your identity OR your politics in their faces, then don't be shocked if they decide they don't wanna deal with your crap and you end up in a home or possibly homeless, or whatever your situation will be if no one is looking after you.
See, in the real world, people don't have to put up with those who annoy them for literally any reason. You may be very used to your Mom having to tolerate pretty much anything from you... Do not expect that from others. No one has quite the level of obligation or dedication that a mother has for a son. Other people will just say, "the hell with this...not worth it...not my problem" if you're a pain to deal with.
Like it doesn't even matter if they believe that bisexuality is common or rare. They are allowed to believe whatever they want. If you need something from them, it isn't smart to be arguing with them about such things.
Judges can award a Conservator or a Guardian for someone such as the OP but it sounds like this situation will never get to that point because both sides (the OP and the mother) are apathetic, and/or unwilling and/or unable.
The original post is actually a nothingburger because OP is an adult. When his mother dies he will likely find it necessary to seek governmental assistance in the form of money and or housing- probably both.
Also, when you refer to someone as "he or she" or "him or her," it's in the third person, meaning you're not present at the time, so how could you be offended?
Judges can award a Conservator or a Guardian for someone such as the OP but it sounds like this situation will never get to that point because both sides (the OP and the mother) are apathetic, and/or unwilling and/or unable.
The original post is actually a nothingburger because OP is an adult. When his mother dies he will likely find it necessary to seek governmental assistance in the form of money and or housing- probably both.
Agree. I can't believe this has generated so many responses -- mine, included!
The whole thing is a non-issue, as far as I can see, but it clearly sparks debate.
Judges can award a Conservator or a Guardian for someone such as the OP but it sounds like this situation will never get to that point because both sides (the OP and the mother) are apathetic, and/or unwilling and/or unable.
The original post is actually a nothingburger because OP is an adult. When his mother dies he will likely find it necessary to seek governmental assistance in the form of money and or housing- probably both.
Like the tone I was getting isn't even quite "apathy."
It feels to me like Mom has judged the son to be incapable of caring for himself. She may be right, but if there are no professionals involved, it's pretty suspicious to me. Was she keeping him dependent for some reasons of her own? Like, how's HER mental health, one wonders...?
But then we have the attitude of our OP, which appears to be not only that he needs a caregiver (because Mom has said so) but that one will always be there. That Mom will simply select one of her friends, and that she has some kind of obligation to cultivate friendships with people who suit the preferences of her son for a caregiver in the future.
I mean, I've got some dear friends, good friends, friends I feel very close to...but I would not in a million years expect that any one of them would consent to be a guardian or caregiver for one of my adult kids. That is not something that one is entitled to, or something that one should take for granted.
This whole thing is strange.
His bisexuality might be the least strange part of it all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
