"George" says: "I would want a warning saying, "Check this box and FYI: people discover their parents aren't their parents, they have siblings they didn't know about. If you check this box, these are the things you'll find."
Yeah, like that would have kept George or anyone else from opening this particularly fascinating Pandora's box.
I believe with 90% certainty that "George" is female.
I have a complicated family background myself (not willing to go into it in public under this handle), but in George's shoes, I would not have pushed this; in particular, I would not have told Thomas about his father nearly as easily.
It's not important, but it's interesting that people reacted quite strongly to it. It was an off-hand comment based on the writing style, tone and perspective, a dozen or more things in the article. I should have parenthesized it, and left it at the end of my comment.
I had the same intuition, actually, and I can't really articulate it either. Interesting that someone else had the same notion.
To the extent that I can back it up at all, it seems to be something to do with the concern George has with how his family feels about this - the interpersonal aspects. Which, when stated this clearly, seems ridiculous, since obviously men can have just as much concern about their families breaking up as women can.
It was just a feeling I had while reading the piece.
* George Doe, rather than John Doe; an alias possibly chosen for gender ambiguity, bringing to mind George Elliot
* Uninhibited display of emotion with emphasis: "fell in love with", "so exited about", "so confused", "freaked out", "immediately felt empathetic", "really devastated" - there's loads more. Men tend to take much less vulnerable verbal positions.
Interestingly, a coworker just brought up this article beside me a few minutes ago (not knowing I'd already read it), and he too thought it was a woman writing.
Yeah, like that would have kept George or anyone else from opening this particularly fascinating Pandora's box.