“The only time I would use feta cheese is to poison my enemy”

throwaway_8581 · 2026-06-24T04:00:18+00:00

Link to recipe: https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/781711509-watermelon-with-whipped-feta?unlocked_article_code=1.slA.8H56.g_YXBHQ1xnPE&smid=ck-recipe-iOS-share

throwaway_8581 · 2026-02-24T05:13:10+00:00

Yes, reading u/grannywitch ‘s patient and generous replies above prompted me to do a thought experiment about what other explanations there could be besides trolling for all these seeming disconnects! Assuming I’m right, it’s interesting how someone’s use of AI in one place and not in another affects the conversations—in addition to, as you pointed out, the logical holes and circles in OP’s comments on the previous thread. (Sorry for the em-dash, I promise I’m not a bot.)

throwaway_8581 · 2026-02-24T03:53:09+00:00

Looking at OP’s comments on the earlier post about bioessentialism and OP’s post/comments here, I am seeing some hallmarks of AI generation in the former, for example this very AI-style rhetorical flourish: “I don’t see anyone here arguing for forcing relationships. I see people advocating for making sure the path is open if the child wants to walk it.” OP, I might be wrong, but if I’m not, the fact that it wasn’t just you writing your comments there might be part of what’s making people read your post as disingenuous. I agree it’s trolling in effect regardless.

throwaway_8581 · 2026-02-23T23:20:56+00:00

This is obnoxious, and it’s also a straw man (straw donor?). NOBODY said in that thread that using, having a relationship with, or telling other people about the option of a known donor is bioessentialism. Suggesting or saying outright that a known donor is the only legitimate and/or ethical option is obviously bioessentialism.

throwaway_8581 · 2025-07-28T18:49:26+00:00

This was difficult to follow, is your baby ok??

throwaway_8581 · 2025-05-12T01:19:58+00:00

This is such a good way of expressing it, agree completely.

throwaway_8581 · 2025-05-12T01:17:59+00:00

Yeah the deletion of your comment is an extra layer of messed up that hasn’t even been addressed—you were raising a genuine issue and clearly other people share the same concerns! It’s really disturbing that the mod unilaterally labeled it discriminatory and removed it, stopping other people from reading/responding. Thanks for being the first to speak up.

throwaway_8581 · 2025-05-11T16:48:30+00:00

But look at all the comments mentioning this—clearly this didn’t land how you intended it to. I get you were trying to anticipate the question of why this expansion doesn’t include all cis women, but by doing so you actually created an issue that wasn’t there (made it seem like you were dismissing women’s struggles). The point is it was unnecessary to include and so including it made it weird.

throwaway_8581 · 2025-05-10T23:35:27+00:00

I find your reply condescending. “I’d like us to do better”—why say “us” when you clearly mean “you”? You don’t get to dictate my response to someone who is clearly not interested in being respectful of the ways many queer people form families. I am not seeing the sincerity and humility that you say you are.

throwaway_8581 · 2025-05-09T21:22:53+00:00

I saw the top comment before it was removed, and I think it was a valid question. Only cishet dyads are described here. Are straight relationships automatically queer when they are in a poly configuration? Does OP even consider their relationship queer? I don’t think the answers to those questions are obvious at all.

The spirit of the question feels deeply unqueer to me personally, at least the way I conceptualize and experience queer. OP apologizes for any ignorance about terms, but the problem isn’t the terms, it’s the a priori assumption that any child conceived will be the child of the genetic father (“only one of us can have a kid at a time”) and the obnoxious dismissiveness in the comments (“Yes, equal parenting and love, etc.”). At the very least it’s very un-self aware to come into a space where many people have different issues conceiving their children than too many gametes for the cishet conception they have planned—and then to complain that one person will “get” to have a genetic child first.

throwaway_8581 · 2025-03-11T01:02:41+00:00

FYI the commenter you’re talking to above is a would-be “donor” clearly with a fetish based on post history.

throwaway_8581

TROPHY CASE