Parents Are Sharing the Most ‘Unhinged' Comments People Have Made About Their Kids' Appearances
What's the most 'unhinged' comment that a stranger made about your child? One mom asked and the answers were astounding.
'Something about commenting on kids' appearances feels really off,' Jasmine Giachetti, a pregnant mother of two who posed the question, tells TODAY.com.
In a TikTok video, Giachetti, whose children are 3, and 5, wrote, 'Tell me the most unhinged thing someone said to you about your child's looks' — and parents unloaded.
Comments on Giachetti's TikTok post include:
'That I should be ashamed to use haircuts as a punishment ... my son has alopecia.'
'I get told my son is very handsome and that I'm probably going to be a young grandma. He's 3!'
'My daughter has autism and I've had SO many people say, 'She doesn't look autistic.' Like, please explain to me what autism is supposed to look like?!'
'A medical assistant told me my son has a face only a mother could love.'
'An older woman told me my twins are absolutely 'kidnappable.' What?! Why would you tell me my biggest fear?'
'People keep saying my baby is a flirt. She is 9 months old.'
''Wow, look at those big ears!' Random guy in the store. I pushed my hair behind my ears and said, 'He got 'em from me.' The guy got real awkward real fast.'
'A lady told me I should put my 2-month-old baby on a diet.'
''Wow, your daughter has the body of a hockey player.''
''Why does your daughter look like that?' My daughter has special needs and this absolutely broke me. I think my daughter is beautiful.'
'Not to me but I was in the delivery room with my sister when she gave birth. The baby was born with Down syndrome and a NURSE said the following to her: 'Ah, too bad. Better luck next time ... they can't all be beauty queens.''
'I don't know if this counts but my daughter was born with a 99th percentile head size and the hospital notes said, 'Mother also has large head.''
Giachetti tells TODAY.com that a stranger has never rudely commented on her children, although one relative fondly called her 3-year-old daughter 'Fatty' for her fast metabolism and growing appetite.
'This person is from a different generation, where those comments were probably considered 'OK' — but I'm sure it made people feel a certain way,' says Giachetti.
Giachetti says she confronted the family member, who stopped the name calling.
According to Dr. Deborah Gilboa, family doctor and resilience expert, parents can take action the minute a stranger remarks on their children's appearances.
'You can look the person right in the eye and kindly say, 'Nope!'' Gilboa tells TODAY.com. 'It defibrillates the conversation and shocks them into a new rhythm without you having been really rude. It's abrupt and confusing.'
More phrases from Gilboa that don't send parents into a debate with strangers:
'We don't talk about my child's body.'
'That's not an appropriate thing to say.'
'It's interesting that you would say that to a stranger.'
'We don't know each other this well.'
Gilboa notes that rude comments may come from people who genuinely believe they aren't offending parents or children. Still, parents should not engage in conversations that are hurtful to their children.
A parent's response can be a wake-up call for the stranger and shows children the treatment they should not accept, adds Gilboa.
If your child hears the remark, understands the meaning of it and is hurt, have a talk.
'Reframe it as if it's about the other person, not about your kid,' says Gilboa. 'You do that by asking your child, 'Why do you think they said that?''
Parents can explain that maybe the stranger was bored, searching for attention or was reminded of another person, such as a grandchild or a childhood memory.
'It doesn't matter why if it's not OK with you,' says Gilboa, 'but it's an interesting thought exercise that stops kids from thinking, 'What is it about me?' and instead think, 'What is it about that person?''
This article was originally published on TODAY.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
30 minutes ago
- Medscape
Which Tx Combo Is Best for HER2+ Breast Cancer?
The combination of trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu) with pertuzumab (Perjeta) as a first-line treatment for HER2-positive advanced metastatic breast cancer has been shown to reduce the risk for disease progression or death by more than the current standard-of-care treatment. Sara Tolaney, MD, MPH Sara Tolaney, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, presented this finding and other interim results of the phase 3 DESTINY-Breast09 study, at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting in Chicago. 'Trastuzumab deruxtecan, or T-DXd, in combination with pertuzumab demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival, with a 44% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death when compared to a taxane, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (THP),' said Tolaney, during her presentation. New First-line Standard? Similar results were observed across all patient subgroups, with no new safety signals, Tolaney said. 'These data suggest that T-DXd and pertuzumab may represent a new first-line standard of care for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer,' she said. The study randomized 1157 patients to three treatment groups: T-DXd 5.4 mg/kg every three weeks plus placebo, T-DXd-pertuzumab, or a taxane plus trastuzumab with pertuzumab (THP). The interim study readout includes only data from the T-DXd-pertuzumab and the taxane plus trastuzumab with pertuzumab groups. Pertuzumab + T-Dxd or Standard of Care? Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 40.7 months in the T-DXd-pertuzumab patients and 26.9 months in the taxane plus trastuzumab with pertuzumab patients ( P < .00001). Tolaney explained that the study was designed to have an interim analysis for PFS after approximately 399 events across the three arms with at least 277 events for comparison. At the time of the interim analysis, she said, only the TDX-pertuzumab and THP groups met the criteria for superiority, a P -value < .00043, which was not met for the comparison of T-DXd plus placebo to THP. The T-DXd-placebo arm remains blinded until the final progression-free survival analysis, Tolaney said. Twenty-one percent of the patients in the T-DXd-pertuzumab arm had discontinued T-DXd due to adverse events, Tolaney said; 9% of patients elected to continue with trastuzumab and pertuzumab after they discontinued T-DXd. Among hormone receptor-positive patients, 13.5% in the T-DXd-pertuzumab group and 38% in the THP group elected to add endocrine treatment. At the data cutoff, 46% of the T-DXd-pertuzumab patients and 33% of those in the THP group remained on study treatment. Median follow-up duration was 29 months. The treatment effect of T-DXd-pertuzumab became evident early in the study, Tolaney said. Six months after starting treatment, 7% of the T-DXd-pertuzumab group vs 12% of the THP group had progressed. The gap continued to widen over time, she said. 'With 26% of patients still on steady treatment with T-DXd and pertuzumab, it suggests that this median is likely to evolve with further follow-up,' she said. Objective response rates were also higher with T-DXd–pertuzumab, 86% vs 79% with THP, Tolaney said. 'The complete response rate for T-DXd and pertuzumab was 15%, which was almost double what was seen with THP (8.5%),' she said. Response duration was also longer with T-DXd-pertuzumab, with 73% remaining in response at 24 months vs 55% in the THP arm. 'Overall survival data are very immature at this timepoint with just 16% of survival events seen, but you can see that there is an early trend favoring T-DXd plus pertuzumab with a hazard ratio of 0.84,' she said. A similar number of patients in both groups had serious treatment-emergent adverse events: 27% for T-DXd-pertuzumab and 25.1% for THP, which Tolaney said, was consistent with the known toxicity profiles of both agents, with no new toxicities identified. The median duration of treatment in the DESTINY-Breast09 study was 21 months. 'A Pivotal Advancement?' Rebecca Dent, MD, deputy CEO at the National Cancer Center Singapore, called the DESTINY-Breast09 results 'a pivotal advancement in the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer that is both clinically and statistically significant.' Rebecca Dent, MD HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer was once considered a 'death sentence,' Dent said at a press conference, but now patients can survive on therapy for years, which presents its own challenges. Regarding the T-DXd-plus-pertuzumab regimen, Dent said, 'Is this for all patients at the beginning of their treatment for metastatic disease?' The truth of the matter is we don't know.' Having better biomarkers would provide answers, she said, but for patients with extensive disease with central nervous system metastasis, pertuzumab in combination with other agents 'is clearly your first-line choice.' How to best sequence therapies is another challenge emerging with these evolving treatment regimens, Dent added. 'And then I think finally we do have to appreciate that there are toxicities: One in terms of quality of life but also cost toxicity,' she said. Which Therapeutic Regimen Costs More? Tolaney acknowledged the cost implications of adding pertuzumab to T-DXd, in an interview with Medscape Medical News . 'But I would also note,' Tolaney said, 'that the standard-of-care arm does involve getting continued trastuzumab and pertuzumab therapy.' In the PATINA study, which added palbociclib (Ibrance) to standard maintenance therapy in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, the cost profile was similar to those of the treatments used in the newer trial, Tolaney said. 'You are looking at substantial continued cost because we're continuing to suppress the HER2 pathway for years in these patients,' she said. AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo funded the study. Tolaney reported financial relationships with ADi, Ambrx, Artios Biopharmaceuticals, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bicycle Therapeutics, BioNTech, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, Circle Pharma, Cullinan Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Hengrui Pharmaceutical (USA), Immunomedics/Gilead, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Launch Therapeutics, Lilly, Menarini Group, Merck, Mersana, NanoString Technologies, Natera, Novartis, OncoPep, Pfizer, Reveal Genomics, Sanofi, Seagen, Sumitovant Biopharma, Summit Therapeutics, Systimmune, Tango Therapeutics, Zentalis, Zuellig Pharma, and Zymeworks. Dent reported having financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, DKSH, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche.
Harvard Business Review
35 minutes ago
- Harvard Business Review
How to Phrase Your Questions When You Need Honest Answers
Oftentimes at work, we encounter situations that require us to uncover the truth. Your manager may not want to tell you that you don't have a chance at a promotion this year because they fear they'd upset you or trigger a conflict. Or your team member may tell a self-serving lie to avoid getting blamed for a delay on a project. In a serious instance of employee misconduct or when things go terribly awry on a project, you may need to gather truthful information and compile evidence to make a decision or find a way forward. Simply asking, 'How did you miss that critical piece of information?' or 'Why didn't I get promoted?' aren't enough. Consider the story of Marshall, who is a composite of a few different real-life scenarios we have seen play out through our work and research. Marshall is a business analyst at a strategy consulting firm and has been eyeing an opportunity to join a high-visibility digital transformation project led by Chloe, an engagement manager. Marshall knows that landing the opportunity would set him on the fast track for a promotion. He emailed Chloe about the opportunity after hearing about it from one of his peers. But he hasn't heard back from her yet, and other peers are already getting staffed on the project. He's not sure what's causing the hold up since his background and experience match well with the client's industry. What Marshall doesn't know is that Chloe has lingering concerns about his performance on a pharmaceutical project he worked on with another engagement manager last quarter. The manager had told Chloe that Marshall lacked assertiveness when questioned by the client, and Chloe is concerned that Marshall would struggle in a client-facing role. Marshall knows that he needs to figure out what the problem is so that he can make necessary adjustments before the project is completely staffed. Specifically, Marshall must determine how to approach Chloe and pose questions that would elicit honest information about Chloe's impressions of him. What should he do? How to Uncover the Truth Based on scenarios like this and our research on the effect of question phrasing on deception, here is evidence-based advice on how you can get people to tell the truth. 1. Do your homework before starting a conversation. Homework is particularly important before you begin a conversation, especially for those that have the potential to become confrontational. You are more likely to succeed in extracting the truth when you are well prepared. In a research study that we conducted on how experts detect insurance fraud, we interviewed special investigators at a large auto insurance company and learned that one of the key reasons for success was the careful, detailed work that investigators undertook to prepare for interviews with those who had committed the fraud. These special investigators canvased neighborhoods, spoke with witnesses, conducted database searches, and gathered evidence. When they spoke with claimants, the investigators had all their facts right. So, for example, let's say you want to find out from your manager why you weren't promoted. You need to develop a strong fact base. You should record a timeline of your work achievements and privately discuss with trusted peers whether and how your contributions have been valued by others. Get a sense of how long it has taken your peers to get promoted, what skills they had and how your skills match theirs, and what the current state of the business unit is. Being well prepared with facts makes you more persuasive and helps steer the conversation towards the truth. 2. Lay the foundation for honest communication. Start the conversation by laying the groundwork to build honesty and trust. Detective Joseph Rovnan, a crisis negotiator in Philadelphia, routinely asks his counterparts the following question: 'Do you want me to be honest with you?' Invariably, people say 'yes,' and he builds a foundation for honest communication from there. Establishing this norm early on is one of the most important steps you can take in eliciting honesty from others. Of course, there are always some details that the other party would rather not disclose—such as a leader not being in a position to divulge sensitive company information. And that's okay. They may set boundaries by explaining what is confidential, what they would need to consult with another party on, or what they do not have the authority to disclose. But in that, they're being honest in what they can and cannot tell you. In such instances, you should acknowledge boundaries and still reinforce the norm for honesty and credibility. 3. Build rapport. Rapport is the mutual expression of positivity and interest that breeds familiarity and liking, which can help establish trust between individuals. Open the conversation with a lighter tone and start by seeking common interests. Ask your counterpart to clarify and explain things to show that you're attentive and are invested in the conversation. Be respectful. When they speak, acknowledge your counterpart's point of view, and don't interrupt them as that can make them feel inferior. Express empathy as it helps validate other people's feelings and builds trust in return. 4. Frame your questions thoughtfully. After telegraphing a commitment to honesty and building rapport, the next important step, according to our research, is to ask a direct question. We define a direct question as a straightforward inquiry that seeks a specific response without much room for interpretation or avoidance. But the trick lies in asking the right kind of direct question, which influences the information you receive. Most of us typically ask questions that fall into one of three categories: general questions, direct questions that presume a problem, or direct questions that presume normalcy. In our research, we found that direct questions that presume a problem are far more likely to elicit an honest response than general questions or direct questions that presume that there is no problem. Furthermore, we found that individuals who ask direct questions that presume a problem are more likely to be perceived as knowledgeable and assertive. Let's consider another example. Say you're a hiring manager and you're meeting with a job candidate. You want to extend an offer, but you want to uncover whether the job candidate has a viable, competing job offer that they might accept. If you ask a general question ('Where are you in your job search process?') or one that presumes the candidate has no other options ('Are you looking forward to this job opportunity at our company?') you may not get the response you need. But if you presume a problem ('Is there anything holding you back from our job opportunity, such as a competing offer?'). The job candidate becomes more likely to disclose that they have another job offer without feeling cornered. 5. Make deception hard(er). Deception—the act of keeping the truth hidden from someone for one's own advantage—is difficult to detect and there are often short-term benefits that make deception tempting. But it's possible to make it hard for someone to deceive you. First plan to have the conversation by meeting in person. To lie, people need to control their verbal and emotional expressions, so lying to someone's face is more difficult than lying at a distance, such as on the phone or over email. Second, try and boost the cognitive load on your counterpart. Lying requires us to think harder to keep track of the truth and the lie, and that increases the cognitive load on the person. Let's go back to the hiring manager example. A common challenge for hiring managers is verifying the qualifications and achievements of a candidate. Some candidates may exaggerate their skills, experience, or certifications to make themselves more appealing. To counteract this, a hiring manager could further boost a candidate's cognitive load by asking about something that happened out of chronological order or asking for minute details. This makes people more likely to make mistakes in their responses, enabling you to discern the truth. Here's how the advice above plays out with Marshall and Chloe. Marshall gathered information before approaching Chloe. He looked at his past projects and spoke to former managers and colleagues. He looked at the feedback he received and focused on how it might translate into this new project. He then asked to meet with Chloe in person, rather than relying on an email exchange or a virtual meeting. He started the conversation by building trust and honesty: 'Chloe, I believe in being honest, and I appreciate the same in return.' And Chloe responded, 'Marshall, honesty and openness are essential to how I work too, so I'm glad we're on the same page. If there's something on your mind, I'm here to discuss and work through it together.' To build rapport, Marshall avoided making an accusation like, 'You never acknowledged my interest in joining the team.' Instead, Marshall was respectful and expressed empathy by saying, 'I can see that you have been busy staffing the best project team possible, and I would like to discuss how I can make a contribution.' Marshall then asked follow-up questions to request specific, detailed information. Instead of asking a generic question like, 'How's the team coming together? Are you still recruiting for it?' Marshall asked a question that presumes a problem: 'What concerns do you have about me becoming a member of your project team?' In return, Chloe responded, 'I heard that you are a good team player, but I am not sure whether you are the right fit for the project based on your previous engagement.' Marshall dug deeper by asking, 'I believe that I could make a valuable contribution to your team, can you please share what specifically concerns you based on the previous engagement?' Chloe shared that Marshall appeared to lack assertiveness during the previous client presentation, and that the upcoming client has a reputation for being skeptical and asking tough questions. Ultimately, Marshall received constructive feedback and gained a clear understanding about why he was not chosen. Armed with this new knowledge, Marshall sought mentoring and training, and, six months later, he worked with Chloe on a new consulting project. . . . While getting someone to tell the truth is a difficult task, fortunately, there are things that you can do to improve your chances of getting an honest answer and to curtail your risk of being deceived. Following these steps will not guarantee that everyone will tell you the truth at all times, but they will make it more likely. Sometimes, the truth can hurt, but truthful information is essential for learning, growth, and professional development.
Forbes
43 minutes ago
- Forbes
2 Ways To Rewrite Your Relationship Dynamics, By A Psychologist
Does your relationship feel stuck in a loop, where you've tried everything to fix certain issues, yet they keep resurfacing? If this sounds familiar, you might need to change where you're doing the 'fixing.' Your focus might be on the surface issues, which are merely the byproducts of deeper patterns that control your relationship dynamics. Many relationship patterns you may decide to start working on, like communicating better, spending more time together or setting boundaries, aren't necessarily where the work starts. The more insidious patterns may stem from the roles you and your partner may have slipped into over time. These can look like the moments you hold back, overextend or wait for the version of them you hope will show up. Rewriting your relationship simply means becoming aware of the invisible patterns shaping your connection and making the conscious choice to show up differently. The point here is to slowly change the unsaid script that runs your relationship by taking responsibility for your part in the pattern from a place of clarity. Here are two ways to rewrite your relationship dynamics to change the way you engage in the connection. In some relationships, the dynamic dictates that you're not attached to the person, but the emotional experience they evoke for you. You may be addicted to emotional states like chaos, rejection, control or longing. Emotional patterns that feel like 'home' because of the familiarity, despite the pain. In classic research published in The Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, the authors conducted a conceptual and clinical review, combining key psychodynamic theories to develop a framework for understanding trauma reenactments. Research highlights that individuals who have experienced trauma often unconsciously 'reenact' aspects of their past, not out of choice, but as a psychological pattern driven by unmet emotional needs or unresolved pain. These reenactments are categorized into four broad types: This framework can offer insight into why you may unknowingly place yourself in roles or dynamics that echo your original trauma. For instance, someone who grew up neglected may continually find themselves in one-sided relationships, not because they want to suffer, but because that dynamic feels familiar to them or 'normal' to their nervous system. This shows that love, comfort and dysfunction often intertwine, making these patterns hard to spot. But here are a few ways you can begin untangling them: 1. Recognize the emotional roles you both repetitively play. One of you may become the 'fixer,' and the other the 'distancer,' for instance. Even arguments can start feeling repetitive as you play out the same dynamic each time. You can ask each other, 'Are we truly addressing the issue at hand, or are we caught in a cycle that's older than the problem itself?' 2. Recognize what you feel when things are calm. When things are calm, if you feel restless or disconnected, it may indicate unresolved issues. Ask yourself, 'Do I crave intensity to feel close, and does calm feel like something's missing?' 3. Recognize when small things trigger big reactions. A disproportionate reaction to an insignificant situation often reveals deeper insecurities or past wounds that get activated, rather the current situation. 4. Recognize if the relationship is thriving on uncertainty rather than stability. If emotional distance or unpredictability makes you feel more alive or invested, you need to understand that your attachment might be rooted in dysfunction. Together, ask each other, 'What does closeness mean for us — ease and emotional availability, or tension and chase?' 5. Recognize if you are bonded over pain or values. Being 'seen' through trauma can create a bond, but struggling to move beyond it may mean the relationship is stuck in old patterns. Ask each other, 'Are we here out of love and conscious choice, or just comfort in what we've survived together?' You might not immediately understand what's going on when you reflect, because deeper patterns are often difficult to spot. You may even need to seek professional support to work through them, which is completely normal. But recognizing these patterns is the first step in undoing dynamics that may be quietly dominating much of your relationship. That said, this change cannot come from just one of you. It needs willingness and awareness from both partners. Conflict is an inevitable part of any relationship. What matters more is how you and your partner handle it together. Each person has their own way of managing conflict, so you both must take the time to reflect on your own approaches. People usually view conflict from their own perspective, which that shapes how they respond to it. Interestingly, research also shows that the way you manage your emotions during conflict can change both your memory of what happened and your emotional experience. The study investigated two common ways of managing emotions during conflicts. Here's what the results suggested: The researchers also highlight that the difference in memory wasn't due to how much was said (conversation length) or how participants felt before the conversation started. The effects were specific to the individuals practicing these strategies, meaning each person's emotion regulation style influenced their memory. This matters because sound memories of relationship conflicts and discussions are important, as it helps both partners understand each other's perspectives and work through problems effectively. If suppression clouds the memory of what was said, conflicts may feel unresolved or more emotionally charged, which makes it harder to communicate and heal. To rewrite your relationship dynamic, it's essential to become aware of your emotional habits during conflict and make conscious efforts to move toward healthier approaches as a couple. Based on the research findings, here are some practical ways to better manage your emotions during conflict to enhance healthier communication in your relationship: Remember that the goal isn't to avoid conflicts but to come out of them feeling more understood, rather than more distant. Emotional awareness is what turns breakdowns into breakthroughs. Rewriting your relationship dynamic is less about quick fixes and more about slow and intentional shifts. Often, this deeper work brings up patterns that may be hard to untangle alone and that's where therapy, individually or as a couple, can become a powerful tool. Sometimes, growth means asking for support, so you don't keep carrying what was never yours to hold in the first place. Are you aware of how your conflict style impacts your relationship? Take this science-backed test to find out: Ineffective Arguing Inventory
