Sure, but if we go with their narrative of being oh so clued up about trans people and their struggles they should be aware of this and not use 'Eduardo' anymore. Unless they too know it's not real ...
SacconeJolys #73 I never knew ADHD stood for A Dick Head Dad
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Sacconejolys Threads Wiki
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
It would be correct to term it as the child (or person's) dead name if they themselves had decided to come out as non-binary or trans, they themselves had decided to socially transition, and they themselves has chosen their new name. None of that is the case for the child in question - all evidence (and there is a lot of it online) points to Eduardo being a kid who likes pink, sparkly things, dressing up, and playing with toys that might be considered to be 'girls' ones. His family reinforces that all of that makes you a girl - it means you can't be a boy. It's also very much about him pleasing his father, and the supposed transgender journey being used to generate the family's income. It's not about a child becoming who they really know that they are deep down inside.His name isn't "dead" it's his birth name
I think the big issue with “deadnaming” etc is regardless as to whether we think it’s all made up, all true or a bit of both, Jonathan claims to be so clued up on all things LGBTQ+, thereby he should be fully aware of how frowned upon it is to refer to a person “pre transition”. He’s very quick to accuse others of not being educated but frequently shows that he himself hasn’t got a clue what he’s talking about. It’s just embarrassing. He constantly contradicts everything he says.
He’s disgusting. He’s definitely sharing that photo for his “friends”. I have no words.
Exactly.
Exactly. Whenever our 4 year old wears dresses she has either cycling shorts or tights on underneath
Couldn't agree more. I've also heard from parents who've children have actually died that "deadname" is very traumatising for them. It's far too extreme a term for a name change.
I find the term terrible, too. I sure do hope they not use it around E2.
I bet my house and car, that if joliar dropped down dead tomorrow, E2 would suddenly take over the role of’ man of the house’.
See I find the wearing of cycling shorts under a dress for a small child.... odd... why?! What are they covering that the knickers don't?!
It's not something i've ever done with my girls - 6 and 2. Different of course if one of them asked to wear shorts under their dress at school or whatever. I wouldn't say no, but I'm not doing it until then because I don't see the point!
Because time had changed, there’s more and more pedalos than ever. You as parents are responsible for your children. Even in the very past woman wore long underwear under dresses.
I quite agree. None of my 5 year old friends do this. They all run around in dresses & skirts with knickers on. What do you do with school uniform? All the girls at DDs primary school from age 4 to age 10 are currently in gingham summer dresses, socks & shoes.. they aren’t allowed to wear leggings underneath their summer dresses. They could wear tights I guess but it’s pretty mild now & they’d be hot! Do you make them wear leggings on holidays abroad?! Or if it’s a hot day in summer here?
I completely & utterly disagree that I am not protecting my children by letter them wear dresses & knickers in summer.It. Makes me quite cross if I’m honest.
I think it’s quite common nowadays my 10 year old niece refuses to wear a dress unless she has cycling shorts under it. Even when she’s wearing her school uniform she wears shorts under her skirt. I’m not sure if it’s just her age though cause when she was younger she didn’t. Plus the fact she’s always doing handstands and cartwheels lol
Thread suggestion: #74 "For the kids", exploitation is back on YouTube
I work in school, currently in year one and yes girls are allowed shorts under school uniforms
I don't know about you, but when I was little I would have been embarrassed to know people can see my pants. I wouldn't want the boys to see them either. By wearing shorts, girls can run, jump and cartwheel without the embarrassment of showing their underwear. It's not always a sexual thing.
I know one child who won’t be wearing shorts this summer, if non binary daddy could put poor Eduardo out in a sequin bikini, pink mules and feather boa he would. The sass!
does anyone know what's happening with their videos? I don't avidly follow the sjs or this thread but have lurked a bit through all this drama. I was under the impression j had decided to delete all the videos but now a lot of them seem to be back up. bit confused about what his logic is behind what he's left deleted/reposted. He seems to have got rid of almost everything pre-emilia, put a couple of her baby videos back up and then there's a couple of years gap til the next videos he's uploaded. Just seems like a bit of a random decision with what he's decided to keep and get rid off. Wonder if they've got people at gleam progressively searching through them for anything that can be viewed as controversial.
Also definitely wouldn't say that girls need to wear shorts under their dresses, I never did as a child and probably wouldn't do the same for my own children - however saying that I also wouldn't upload a picture of it for millions to see.
Also definitely wouldn't say that girls need to wear shorts under their dresses, I never did as a child and probably wouldn't do the same for my own children - however saying that I also wouldn't upload a picture of it for millions to see.
- Status