shoulds

Whatever any individual, group, religion or even greater society dictate and promote in terms of what/how a person "should" or "shouldn't" be must remain psychologically contained as the opinions/beliefs of those people/groups to avoid falling into the unnecessary conflict of condemnation or inflation (both self and other directed).

However someone or something is, that's how they are. Regardless of the opinions of various individuals or groups, that is how nature/the universe/life created and shaped them. The fact of their existence indicates that they "should" be as they are, regardless of what humans think or feel about it.

To preserve internal integrity and perceptual clarity, all shoulds and shouldn'ts must be seen as relative and contextual. Overarching group norms of any size or type are typically based on either median standards, beliefs around practical concerns (like survival and safety) or active promotion to mould or drive individuals to serve certain ends. The resulting expectations and judgements are not based in existential truth. Existential truth is what is.

All such ideas can be observed and understood as factual (by virtue of their existence) without being internalized as representing truth in a greater sense. Rules, standards and expectations can be respected and adhered to without casting judgement either onto self or others for inherent or inherited differences. Individuals can't control their biology or upbringings and the thoughts, feelings and traits that emerge as a result. It could be argued that without awareness, which largely comes about through a combination of unpredictable circumstances and experiences, (re)actions similarly occur without conscious control. Therefore judgement is better left aside, whether positive or negative, in favor of looking at and accepting whoever/whatever is there. And then responding accordingly.