Yeah, I agree. It’s not like I disagree with any of the specific points made in the post, but when you put it together it seems very, idk, complacent? Sure, not everything needs to be a challenge, but I also think it’s important to challenge yourself in some things.

Like you alluded to, it means that you’ll fail from time to time, but to me that’s better than never succeeding. Failure is more of an achievement than not trying at all.

I mean, I guess there’s a point to that, but isn’t there inevitably a social aspect to it? Especially in this post, where the person is saying others don’t have to understand it, meaning it’s clearly outwardly visible and part of who they are.

I’m not saying you should seek approval from anyone (for your gender nor anything else), because that’ll never happen. But denying the importance of some social acceptance for things in the social sphere is kind of weird, and feels like a “haha, unless…?” thing; you want others to understand and accept it, but the moment you don’t their acceptance becomes irrelevant and you never sought any acceptance at all. It feels like an unhealthy way to cope with rejection.

I think the language analogy is actually very apt, because not every has to understand it, but the people you want to speak French with necessarily have to know it. Otherwise it just doesn’t fulfil any purpose.

Also, because gender is a social construct, it requires that enough people understand it to a sufficient degree.

Not trying to counter your point, but female athletes that don’t dope don’t ever become super muscular. Like, look at Khelif. She has just proven she is the best in the world in a combat sport, and she still doesn’t look muscular to the point of looking male. The transphobes mainly came at her because her face isn’t super feminine, which doesn’t really have anything to do with boxing.

I occasionally hear women saying they don’t want to do workouts that target their upper body, and I’m always baffled because it’s not like they’ll ever even slightly look like a dude lol.

“Haha I don’t exercise” irks me in a way few other things do. Like, fair deuce if you don’t want to exercise, but acting like it’s super quirky and funny gives me a certain impression I really dislike.

It’s a good way to look like you’re working

Shoutout King Leopold

Also, fun fact: Jeroom’s partner is Élodie Ouédraogo, an Olympic gold medalist.

Right, I must’ve overlooked that. My bad.

You can easily use it with Nextcloud, to name one example. So yeah, it’s a good suggestion.

They’re different tools, just use them alongside each other.

They’re saying life is miserable, I’m saying it’s not inherently miserable. Like, that’s not a subjective take lol.

Also, what about my comment made it seem like they said it was 50/50? And even if I thought that’s what they said, how does that invalidate my argument?

Even in my comment I acknowledge there are multiple reasons not to have children, so I really don’t understand what you’re arguing against.

I get what you’re saying, but it just feels incredibly (and needlessly) defeatist to me.

1. I don’t even have kids lol
2. Calling people out for being condescending is not the same as being condescending. This reeks of the same mentality that people who unironically say hating racists makes you hateful and therefore just as bad as racists have.

I get that less workers would mean more power to the workers, but avoiding having kids to limit the supply of workers seems, idk, fucking weird and also weirdly passive?

You can protest, join a union, start a workers co-op or organise in different ways, but that takes effort. Or you could not have kids, which takes less effort than having kids, and say it’s praxis? Idk, to me this feels like packaging your own personal choice as a grand political stand, as if you would jump at the opportunity to have kids if we lived in a socialist society.

Also, to counter your point, historically a lot of protest and unrest came from a dissatisfied populace with not enough job opportunities. So by that logic you should just pop out kids so they’ll be a part of the revolution. I don’t believe this, to be clear, but I mention it as a way to illustrate that basing your decision to have kids on how it will affect the supply and demand of labour is really fucking weird, and also not even something with a predictable outcome.

But you’re basing that on your own negative experiences in life, and you’re acting like they’re objective and universal.

Also, by that logic you shouldn’t do anything that could potentially cascade into making someone else unhappy, which would be absolutely debilitating.

Don’t get me wrong, I get that you should think twice, thrice and even more about having kids, especially if you’re not in a position to give them a good life and/or if you have certain heritable issues. But your overall position seems overly negative and, idk, somewhat misanthropic? In your worldview humanity should just stop existing because people can be unhappy in life. It’s overly reductive and negative to me.

I don’t think it’s objectively and clearly unethical, so I think your claim that it is is wrong.

Ok lol, my point remains exactly the same and I think your viewpoint is incredibly reductive.

Your life is a painful mess and you’re generalising that to everyone. I’m sorry you’re unhappy about your life, but that really isn’t an argument about other people having children.

Life can be painful, it can be beautiful, it can be dull or exciting, or anything in between. It’s not inherently negative or positive, as you’re claiming.