AITA for still doing a turkey trot when my son in law is disabled and couldn’t participate?
A family tradition became the source of unexpected tension after a Thanksgiving morning activity continued as usual. For years, the family has participated in a Turkey Trot, a casual race that some members join while others opt out without issue. This routine had always been flexible, with participation never being mandatory.
That changed when a son expressed anger that the tradition was not cancelled for his disabled spouse, who could not physically take part. What followed was an argument about exclusion, intention, and responsibility, eventually escalating to an ultimatum about attending future holidays. Shared on a social network, the post sparked widespread debate over whether continuing the race was insensitive or simply a matter of preserving a long-standing family custom.
‘AITA for still doing a turkey trot when my son in law is disabled and couldn’t participate?’
A long-standing Thanksgiving tradition had always allowed flexible participation.
A new family member changed how the tradition was perceived.
The disagreement escalated into a broader family conflict.
From one perspective, continuing a tradition that is optional and time-limited does not inherently exclude someone who cannot participate. The family has a history of members opting out for various reasons without judgment. Providing alternatives, such as staying home or arriving later, suggests flexibility rather than discrimination.
On the other hand, disability can heighten sensitivity around inclusion, particularly when a loved one feels protective. The son’s reaction may stem from fear that his spouse will feel marginalized, even if that feeling was never expressed directly. When advocacy shifts into speaking on behalf of someone else, it can unintentionally create tension or draw attention to differences rather than normalize them.
The broader social lesson highlights the importance of direct communication. Understanding whether the disabled individual feels hurt or content is crucial before making sweeping demands. Traditions can coexist with empathy when accommodations are offered without forcing everyone to abandon activities entirely.
Take a look at the comments from fellow users:
Many users defended the tradition, emphasizing choice and intent.
Some commenters questioned who was truly upset and why.
Others used humor or exaggeration to make their point.
This story highlights how good intentions can clash with long-standing traditions when family dynamics shift. While inclusion is important, the definition of inclusion may vary depending on perspective and communication.
Should traditions change entirely when one person cannot participate, or is flexibility enough? How can families balance empathy with personal choice without creating resentment? Readers are encouraged to share how they would navigate similar situations.
