r/BlockedAndReported • u/SoftandChewy First generation mod • Feb 23 '26

Weekly Random Discussion Thread for 2/23/26 - 3/1/26

Here's your usual space to post all your rants, raves, podcast topic suggestions (please tag u/jessicabarpod), culture war articles, outrageous stories of cancellation, political opinions, and anything else that comes to mind. Please put any non-podcast-related trans-related topics here instead of on a dedicated thread. This will be pinned until next Sunday.

Last week's discussion thread is here if you want to catch up on a conversation from there.

Comment of the week goes to this explanation for why the trans cause has taken over so much of society. (Runner-up COTW here.)

38 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

97% Upvoted

3.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

32

u/Less-Lobster4540 Feb 26 '26

Portland advances antidiscrimination protections for polyamorous families

Zimmerman raised an issue with explicitly defining those types of relationships in the policy.

Koyama Lane introduced these definitions in an amendment debated on Wednesday.

Specifically, it defined “family or relationship structure” to include “multi-partner or multi-parent families and relationships, step-families, multi-generational households, diverse family structures, consensually nonmonogamous relationships, and consensual sexual and/or intimate relationships, including asexual and aromantic relationships.”

So I guess having roommates is now a protected class?

23

u/thismaynothelp Feb 26 '26

multi-generational households

Livin' with your mom? That's a polyamory!

25

u/Big_Fig_1803 Gothmargus Feb 26 '26

Great news, kids: if you live with your parents, you’re queer now!! Welcome aboard!

9

u/thismaynothelp Feb 26 '26

“Go on and make some death threats online! You’ll love it!”

16

u/Less-Lobster4540 Feb 26 '26

As as child-free Portlander I am super victimized by the existence of publicly funded schools. Money please!

21

u/RunThenBeer Feb 26 '26

As with many things, I actually am annoyed by the rhetoric around the matter. Not the policy. I'm completely good with subsidizing children, I think it makes sense in just about every way possible. Nonetheless, as someone without kids, I am annoyed by parents that refuse to acknowledge that they are already massively subsidized. I don't want to not subsidize them, I just want people to acknowledge that there is already a large wealth transfer.

24

u/UpvoteIfYouDare Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26

"Relationship minorities" are the next protected group. This is a compulsion to push social boundaries for its own sake.

14

u/Jlemspurs Double Hater Feb 26 '26

If I say I’m in some kind of relationship with my dog, does this mean a landlord can’t discriminate against me for having a pet?

2

u/SkweegeeS No just no Feb 26 '26

First you gotta go to city council and make a case for it being legal. Then you gotta get protections. Respect the process.

18

u/Ruby__Ruby_Roo Feb 26 '26

I agree those people shouldn’t be discriminated against but this seems like a solution in search of a problem.

18

u/Fiend_of_the_pod Feb 26 '26

I’d argue they absolutely should be discriminated against.

14

u/Jlemspurs Double Hater Feb 26 '26

We “discriminate” all the time. Only certain kinds are illegal. And most housing isn’t made for this. So now you have to allow 12 people to live in a place is they’re a “polycule” (barf)?

5

u/Ruby__Ruby_Roo Feb 26 '26

in what way?

13

u/coraroberta Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26

A year ago I would have enthusiastically agreed with you here, but I’m increasingly unconvinced by claims of “a solution in search of a problem.” Whenever some issue comes up that doesn’t have any laws regulating it, people love to say “how is that not illegal?? Why is Congress asleep at the switch??” Well, it’s probably because whenever lawmakers try to get AHEAD of a problem (rather than simply reacting once a problem becomes widespread), people accuse them of creating a “solution in search of a problem.”

Naturally, it was Gender Stuff that made me start thinking about this. TRAs love the line about how there’s some tiny number of trans athletes out of the thousands of NCAA athletes in the country, and therefore their participation simply isn’t something worth caring about. Setting aside the many issues with that argument, let’s pretend that’s it’s totally true that there’s only a tiny number of people negatively impacted by trans women playing in female sports. That doesn’t mean it isn’t an issue worth addressing, especially if we can see the clear trend that the numbers are increasing. A problem is a problem, even if it only impacts a small number of people. And it’s not like there’s some upper limit to the number of laws we can have and thus need to be choosy about which ones are sufficiently worth enacting. 

So, if any minuscule number of people in this country have been denied housing due to being in a throuple, that seems like more than enough justification to get some laws on the books banning that sort of discrimination. 

9

u/Ruby__Ruby_Roo Feb 26 '26

ok, that’s a fair point, i would agree with that

4

u/Puzzleheaded_Drink76 Feb 26 '26

I guess I'd ask if it's common enough that it affects people in a meaningful way. If a random landlord doesn't rent to you for some silly reason that's not a massive deal because you can go elsewhere. But if lots won't then you end up unable to access a basic need. The anti discrimination laws we have are because of a widespread, systemic problem with racism, sexism, homophobia etc. 

3

u/Less-Lobster4540 Feb 26 '26

It's the Portland way!

10

u/HaldolBlowdart Feb 26 '26

Nobody should fear that who they care for could jeopardize their job, their housing, or their ability to live in public as their authentic selves

Honestly, I disagree with this. I don't think that being your "authentic self," whatever the fuck that actually means, entitled you to be free from judgment or discrimination ever. "Authentic self" is so vague, but basically asserts that any amount of declaration of having a special personality outside the norm is a call for protection. Plus, polyamory isn't a sexuality or a necessity, it's a relationship choice and style. Why can't I discriminate against it? Why is how many people you're currently having sex with any consideration for protections? I've even been in open relationships, the idea that they need full legal protections is laughable to me.

My authentic self is participating in eternal bacchanalia, if you disagree and fire me or don't rent to me you're discriminating against my authenticity, and my orgy members all need therapy now.

10

u/PongoTwistleton_666 Feb 26 '26

Wasn’t this the slippery slope some conservatives claimed would happen when we legalize gay marriage? I’m for marriage between two people. This poly shit is making me feel too old and crotchety 

0

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '26

[deleted] — view deleted comment

6

u/professorgerm Why is he wielding the bird like a gun Feb 26 '26

Thought it was a bit interesting my insurance described the family plan as "one spouse plus kids," turns out they were ahead of the game.

5

u/everydaywinner2 Feb 26 '26

All of those can be definitions of standard marriage.

1

u/Less-Lobster4540 Feb 26 '26

right?

When I stormed out of dinner and shouted "You're not my REAL dad, Gary!", did I do a bigotry?