Guardian article celebrates Pride without mentioning gays or lesbians

The statement way overstates the case. But yes sometimes going NC is the best thing to do.

Yes drop your normal family and be part of the ‘glitter family’ as I’ve seen it called. It’s grooming pure and simple.

If people who are part of your nominal family are not making you happy, and they’re complicating your life, and bringing you anxiety and stress and sadness, drop them.

Spoken like someone who has not yet experienced parenting a teenager.

Or had an aging parent who needs care or grieving after bereavement. Or a family member with special needs or longterm illness. Or myriad other family members who’ve needed support through difficult times.

Nope. Drop them all, fuck their joy-sucking negativity and adopt only enabling, validating, uplifting, all-singing-all-dancing-all-the-fucking-time people as family. Thing is it’s a precarious path to tread because if your new ‘family’ operates on the same principles you’re going to be shit out of luck come the time you need so much as a shoulder to cry on.

Oh I dunno, I think Marie would balk at 50 shades.
She mightened say it aloud, but I reckon she'd quietly advise to thank 45 for their service and fold the other 5 neatly away.

If people who are part of your nominal family are not making you happy, and they’re complicating your life, and bringing you anxiety and stress and sadness, drop them.

Spoken like someone who has not yet experienced parenting a teenager.

Watch Queer as Folk where one of the two main gay characters complains about straight people coming to the gay village to get their thrills. There is nothing new here, except the terminology and that a national newspaper is covering it as a real thing. At one time if The Guardian had mentioned it at all, it would have been in a column written by a gay columnist complaining about it.

Yes, straight visitors to Canal Street used to be dismissed as ‘tourists’. Now they are ‘queerer’ than boring old homosexuals.

DanaPhoenix

It's like Marie Kondo meets 50 shades.

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

Oddly, the Guardian AU yesterday ran this piece WITH COMMENTS! Not sure how that slopped through. Article is rah-rah self ID, GC comments in response allowed to stand.

www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/20/our-gender-is-not-for-others-to-decide-a-bill-for-trans-people-to-self-identify-is-a-good-start

"For me, if it's not sparking joy, then leave it."

I shouldn't laugh, but....
It's like Marie Kondo meets 50 shades.

I'll get my coat.

“For me, if it’s not sparking joy, then leave it.”
And there, in one sentence, is the perfect expression of the sickness of these people. It’s all about me, and what interests me, and what makes me feel good. I’ll tell my kids to change what they call me so I can feel comfortable.
Just. Fuck. Off. And leave having kids to people who understand it’s not all about them.

The Guardian is off its rocker.

Watch Queer as Folk where one of the two main gay characters complains about straight people coming to the gay village to get their thrills. There is nothing new here, except the terminology and that a national newspaper is covering it as a real thing. At one time if The Guardian had mentioned it at all, it would have been in a column written by a gay columnist complaining about it.

I will never again click on a Guardian link. Based on this thread, I'm dodging a bullet.

Read it.

What a load of sanctimonious, self-indulgent bilge.

Absolutely nothing new here big yawn
Armistead Maupin, Tales of the City springs to mind.

Sorry should clarify, I have left money in my will to partner, kids and friends who I see as family.

Eaudear I am well aware of that, which is why I said no actually not groundbreaking.

Lass Thanks. When I was in my twenties there were plenty of people around saying their family are their friends. Now in my mid 50s it is rare. I do have a few friends who are family. We have left in wills any money we have to each other, we support each other. We don't always see each other all the time, but it is more than just friends. But most people have turned back to their blood families or their nuclear families and focus on them.

Uncommon is not the same as groundbreaking

jennymara I agree with you. The concept of choosing friends to replace a family group is uncommon. I don't know why you are getting such contrarian responses.

Actually no, not groundbreaking, but uncommon.

Okay we disagree. I don't think it is when you are young, I think meaning it and those friends being family when you are old is groundbreaking.

Creating family from friends really isn't 'groundbreaking'. People have been doing it forever.

Yes, lots of people are closer to family than friends, but this doesn't mean that making a family from non blood relatives is 'groundbreaking'.

Dpwm I did not realise you were talking about a partner being described as family. That is normal I agree.
And no friends are not necessarily just friends. It is not saying they are blood related to you, that is stupid. It is saying they are your family. Family is different from just friends. And yes people do create families of friends. But yes most people still dismiss this or even mock it.

So I know someone with a friend who is a family member. When she wanted time off work unpaid to care for her when she had been in hospital, this was refused because she was "only a friend". She wasnt, she was family. And there is a history of this in the LG community, because so may people were ostracised by their blood family. I also see people creating family with friends who have been abused by their blood family.

Why the sarkiness?
Oh sorry I am interrupting your group mock in with some actual facts?

Jennymanara I think creating family from friends is still ground breaking
Yes it's so very groundbreaking to marry someone who is your friend, like, hardly anyone does that ...

Outside of marriage, "family" is blood-related. It's usually a bit over the top to insist someone who is a friend is actually blood related to you. Unless you're in a cult, or the Mafia...