(6)

I do feel like your stance here kind of stigmatizes queer couples in a way I'm a bit uncomfortable about.

I am a queer adoptee. Queer people can have biological children. Queer people are not entitled to another person’s child anymore than a cishet person is.

think you're writing me off as a narcissist that I am very much not

“Narcissist” is not an insult, having a stigmatized personality disorder is not an insult and it is ableist to act like it is.

Honestly, my experiance in childcare, and one shared by many people I know who's experiance with their biological parents were negative, is that a person's biological family are often the WORST people for that child.

This is anecdotal and the options you dismissed for yourself previously like kinship and community care center the child while not forcing them to be with their abusers.

"Parental rights" is a right wing dogwhistle for a reason, and a cover for abuse.

Bringing up parental rights in a discussion about the reproduction rights of marginalized people and the rights of adoptees is disingenuous and irrelevant. As mentioned, these groups are more likely to have their children stolen from them to be sold to white, wealthy people. That has nothing to do with right wing dogwhistles.

Thats awful. Can I just like, not do that though? https://adopteerightslaw.com/faq-adoptee-original-birth-certificates/

I also can't shake the feeling that there is something racist or "woke segregation" about this attitude as well? I have mixed feelings about it. An actual transracial adoptee is telling you the effects it has on us and you’re talking about your white feelings. See the sources for other transracial adoptees experiences.

I'm a bit hesitant to say that a naive child who thinks they want to keep their child should be able to But they should be able to be coerced into giving away their child forever? Especially when many adoptions from Korea, Vietnam, and Haiti did not have informed consent and the parents weren’t aware they would never be able to see their child again?

Are we actually being child-first here or are we being biological parent-first? The reproductive rights of marginalized people and the rights and wellbeing of adoptees are both important. The wants of potential adoptive parents are irrelevant when compared to the rights of others.

But I mean, is your answer here to leave kids in the system? Surely a stable home is better for kids than the system? And again the more I write about this the more I want to say, what about kids from genuinely abusive homes.

The majority of children in the foster system are there due to neglect that can be solved through financial support. The minority of children experiencing physical or sexual abuse can be removed from their abusers via kinship care as priority, community care second, and guardianship last as I said before. The adoption industry does not need to exist.

And the more I read about your stance the more I think your stance is inappropriately weighting the rights of a biological parent OVER that of the child, while claiming to be child-first.

Marginalized people deserve reproductive rights. Marginalized people deserve to not have their children taken away as punishment for being marginalized. In the comment that started our reply chain, I said that adoption was a tool for genocide and listed the examples of Indigenous children being taken from their families and Korean children being sold as spoils of war. Yes, I do care about the biological families rights. I prioritize the rights and wellbeing of adoptees first, and biological families second. You see adoption as the solution because you believe the propaganda that most adoptees are either being abused or were orphans which is just not true. I hope you actually take the time to read the sources and listen to the people you claim to care about.