I greatly appreciate all criticism of adoption coming from #AdopteeVoices.
I do want to caution queer people in particular that fostering queer teenagers, while far from perfect, is still something very much needed and something you can probably do more easily than you think.
I know from firsthand experience that fostering queer youth doesn't make you a saint, and you don't really save anyone bc that's not how life works.
It does however, have the potential to bring you great joy and fun when it's going well (alongside, admittedly, a some pain).
At the very least you probably can give someone a safe place to stay and be an example of a queer adult who isn't dead, in jail, or addicted who would otherwise be shuffled around group homes bc there genuinely aren't families who will take them in.
The requirements to do this may be less than you think (which in some ways sucks and is sad). The highest bar to clear is having a home with a seperate bedroom for the youth. If you have that, an income, and can pass a background check most likely they'll want you.
If you think living with you would be better than shuttling between group homes and slowly losing hope for a normal life, you're probably right, and your local foster care agency will probably agree!
Transfemmes and genderqueer AMAB teens are in particular need of homes, because of course.
I've fostered two, and hopefully at some point I'll have spare bedroom again and foster more! DM me any time if you want to know more, it was the coolest thing I've ever done.
The foster care system is awful, please join it is a really hard pitch, but it's the right one for queer teens who need a place to call home.
Oh- just realized that, because of who else is talking about adoption, this could come across as my saying that people struggling with infertility should foster teens.
NO!
I think all kinds of people should consider letting a teen chill in their house for a yr or two, but doing it solely bc of infertility is a bad idea. Teens aren't babies! People coping with infertility likely need time to grieve the lost possibilities before even considering it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Don't keep secrets with children" is a clever little turn of phrase. Giving the devil his due here.
Asking a child to keep YOUR BEHAVIOR secret is a major red flag.
Agreeing to keep what a child says confidential is a key element of building trust.
I've been sworn to solemn secrecy by children confiding the most minor, basic, totally silly and unremarkable things- and I'll take those little secrets to my grave.
When a conversation feels serious and I think there's a chance a child might say something I'm mandated to report about harm to them or others, I will always stop a moment and make it clear what kinds of secrets I can and can't keep.
The idea that trans people owe the community PR professional levels of image management is fucking toxic.
"[They're] tweeting through it."
Oh you mean the person isn't in a major defense crouch about an objection to some minor bs that it seems impossible anyone could take seriously, but you are predicting with glee that they soon will be?
"Oh by this objection to that was technically valid."
I'm talking about proportionality and not destroying everyone in our community who gets any kindof audience.
1. When a piece about youth transition says "daughters" it's talking about young trans boys in a way that is priming you to dismiss them as silly and emotional and believe they need to be protected from themselves.
2. When a piece about trans athletes quotes someone who is concerned about "men competing against women" it is priming you to think of trans women as imposters and threats to cis women, subtly dissuading you from thinking they might be in need of protections themselves.
3. When a piece quotes both sides of a controversy in transgender medicine, but does not include what the mainstream consensus is (or downplays it) it is trying to trick you into thinking there isn't a mainstream consensus based on established medical science
I'm at page 5 of the new Littman paper on detransitioners, and the good news is that it is MUCH better done than the paper on transphobic parental attitudes (which Littman mislabeled as studying ROGD).
The bad news for me, personally, is that it may be hard or impossible to get an article out of this reasonable, limited survey of 100 people who detransitioned.
Are there places where the researcher's bias against trans people shows? Absolutely. But the study seems fine so far.
So far it looks like she recruited in communities w mostly AFAB detransitioners where certain narratives were dominant, and got a majority of AFAB detransitioners who subscribed to those narratives.
But- so far- it doesn't look like she's claiming to have done more than that.
A caste system is one where your birth determines your place in society and nothing can change it- thats how gender has traditionally worked.
The gendered caste system is built on a belief that sex is immutable and much more than appearance- it determines personality and fitness for certain social roles.
Maybe it's an oversimplification, but here's my understanding of how the narrative that inclusive language erases women became established as a pillar of anti-trans op-eds.
First: Scattered TERFs saw inclusive language such as "pregnant people" and assumed that the word "woman" was being erased by trans women because they're genuinely so transphobic they're unhinged conspiracy theorists and that makes sense to them.
Second: It was clarified that inclusive language was about including trans men and AFAB nonbinary people who need specific kinds of medical care that is often mislabeled as being for women only.