Ira's Pod

Ira 26 He/They Autistic Ace and Jewish

[javacad0]

I'm tired of saying "Sneasels of both forms and Weaviles and also Sneaslers" all the time, there should be an umbrella term.

[cutekittenlady]

I just call em the Weasler family.

[javacad0]

Genius.

[pokemonheritageposts]

Pokemon Heritage Post

[rave-lord-nito]

Julius Ceasar has been dead for 2064 slutty, slutty years

[rave-lord-nito]

Julius Caesar has been dead for 2065 slutty, slutty years

[rave-lord-nito]

Julius Caesar has been dead for 2066 slutty, slutty years

[rave-lord-nito]

Julius Caesar has been dead for 2067 slutty, slutty years

[rave-lord-nito]

Julius Caesar has been dead for 2068 slutty, slutty years

[rave-lord-nito]

Julius Caesar has been dead for 2069 (nice) slutty, slutty years

[girlnamedbug]

[asymmetryestablished]

I made some more autism creatures

just like last time, feel free to steal em, they were made for sharing

and various drinky drink creachurs for ur drinky needs

(I was gonna do an alcohol one too but I forgot whoops)

[nonspeakerlibrary]

Neurodiversity 2.0 - Harnessing cross-disciplinary disability insights

The neurodiversity movement has reframed cognitive and behavioral differences as natural variations rather than deficits, advocating for soc

An important paper by Hari Srinivasan, a nonspeaking autistic researcher about a new model of neurodiversity that serves all of us better and brings knowledge from all disability communities. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S3050656525001245#bib17

some quotes:

labels such as “autistic” or “ADHD” can provide identity and access to resources, yet when misapplied, they also reinforce marginalization. While necessary, such categories, can reduce complex support needs into static descriptors, particularly when terms like “low-functioning” or “high support needs” become shorthand for “resource-intensive” or “burdensome,” leading to lowered societal expectations and reduced access to essential opportunities.”

For many high‑support autistic adults, “independent living” means residing alone while a rotating cast of Direct Support Professionals (DSPs) provides care—relationships that are, by definition, transient. National DSP turnover runs 40–70 % per year (Friedman, 2020; American Network of Community Options and Resources [ANCOR], 2021), so such autistics repeatedly lose the very people charged with supporting them, resulting in unstable relationships and repeated losses of connection. Service systems nonetheless judge success by how quickly these autistics can be moved out of the family home and into such semi‑independent programs; arrangements families themselves describe as less stable (National Council on Disability, 2020).

A double standard emerges: neurotypical adults—and even “more‑independent” neurodivergent peers—are encouraged to cultivate lifelong family bonds. As one national report notes, “family and friends comprise the most basic unit of any society” (National Alliance for Caregiving, & AARP, 2020, p. 4). High‑support individuals, by contrast, are told that success requires leaving that basic unit, living away from their families, who are often their primary long-term stable relationship, and relying solely on impermanent paid staff. This version of independence is more isolating than empowering. When policies and social norms equate independence with dignity, they render interdependence invisible.

on excluding nonspeakers and autistics with intellectual disabilities from research:

Exclusionary criteria, such as IQ cutoffs and the ability to engage in standardized tasks, have systematically excluded individuals with higher support needs, reinforcing disparities in both research representation and real-world support systems. Importantly, when research defines “evidence-based” without broad inclusion, entire communities are excluded from the very systems meant to support them. Interventions resulting from convenience-sampling research may fail when applied to excluded populations (Srinivasan, 2023c). However, instead of recognizing these failures as limitations of the research itself, they are often misinterpreted as an incapacity to learn and grow. As a result, such students may be placed in low-expectation educational environments and excluded from the same learning opportunities as their peers (Srinivasan, 2023c). This cycle creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where the trend of early exclusion limits future opportunities downstream in higher education, employment, and community participation (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968, Higgins et al., 1977). Similar patterns exist in healthcare and employment, where systemic barriers; shaped by incomplete research, continue to reinforce exclusion (Srinivasan, 2023c).”

[vergolophus-archive]

Mega Flygon has always been that golden goose of the fandom, spurring countless designs and iterations on the idea that while spectacular, I never felt quite hit the mark.

Flygon finds success in its simplicity: just the right amount of color and just the right amount of shape balance. Adding too much paradoxically takes more and more away from what made Flygon such a stand out.

To do the Mega justice, I feel like it needs to be bold and surprising, even derailing the english name "Fly"gon as it brings back a part of itself long forgotten. Something reminiscent of the fact that the pre-evolution Trapinch has the exact same base attack total as its final stage with a whopping 100, and in need of more power it calls back to that stage of its life once more.

[nonspeakerlibrary]

Neurodiversity 2.0 - Harnessing cross-disciplinary disability insights

The neurodiversity movement has reframed cognitive and behavioral differences as natural variations rather than deficits, advocating for soc

An important paper by Hari Srinivasan, a nonspeaking autistic researcher about a new model of neurodiversity that serves all of us better and brings knowledge from all disability communities. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S3050656525001245#bib17

some quotes:

labels such as “autistic” or “ADHD” can provide identity and access to resources, yet when misapplied, they also reinforce marginalization. While necessary, such categories, can reduce complex support needs into static descriptors, particularly when terms like “low-functioning” or “high support needs” become shorthand for “resource-intensive” or “burdensome,” leading to lowered societal expectations and reduced access to essential opportunities.”

For many high‑support autistic adults, “independent living” means residing alone while a rotating cast of Direct Support Professionals (DSPs) provides care—relationships that are, by definition, transient. National DSP turnover runs 40–70 % per year (Friedman, 2020; American Network of Community Options and Resources [ANCOR], 2021), so such autistics repeatedly lose the very people charged with supporting them, resulting in unstable relationships and repeated losses of connection. Service systems nonetheless judge success by how quickly these autistics can be moved out of the family home and into such semi‑independent programs; arrangements families themselves describe as less stable (National Council on Disability, 2020).

A double standard emerges: neurotypical adults—and even “more‑independent” neurodivergent peers—are encouraged to cultivate lifelong family bonds. As one national report notes, “family and friends comprise the most basic unit of any society” (National Alliance for Caregiving, & AARP, 2020, p. 4). High‑support individuals, by contrast, are told that success requires leaving that basic unit, living away from their families, who are often their primary long-term stable relationship, and relying solely on impermanent paid staff. This version of independence is more isolating than empowering. When policies and social norms equate independence with dignity, they render interdependence invisible.

on excluding nonspeakers and autistics with intellectual disabilities from research:

Exclusionary criteria, such as IQ cutoffs and the ability to engage in standardized tasks, have systematically excluded individuals with higher support needs, reinforcing disparities in both research representation and real-world support systems. Importantly, when research defines “evidence-based” without broad inclusion, entire communities are excluded from the very systems meant to support them. Interventions resulting from convenience-sampling research may fail when applied to excluded populations (Srinivasan, 2023c). However, instead of recognizing these failures as limitations of the research itself, they are often misinterpreted as an incapacity to learn and grow. As a result, such students may be placed in low-expectation educational environments and excluded from the same learning opportunities as their peers (Srinivasan, 2023c). This cycle creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where the trend of early exclusion limits future opportunities downstream in higher education, employment, and community participation (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968, Higgins et al., 1977). Similar patterns exist in healthcare and employment, where systemic barriers; shaped by incomplete research, continue to reinforce exclusion (Srinivasan, 2023c).”

[ira-407]

hey I've read your post about aspie supremacy and may I ask what was "just us autistics"? this is the first time I'm hearing about this group.

Yeah, I reread my post recently and thought to myself "wait, most people who see this won't know what that means" so let me explain. Just Us Autistics is a now-inactive Facebook group that only allowed autistic people in-no cousins, no one who's non-autistic but otherwise disabled, just autistic people. It was moderated by someone I find to be incredibly toxic to the neurodiversity movement-would rather not name names-and I can definitely see how that person created a toxic environment from it. There was a lot of gossip and infighting on there. I wasn't an active participant but I was let into the group by another moderator (the original moderator ragequit a while ago). They let me in there because it had some good details on neurodiversity history.

[withasmoothroundstone]

Under the Banana Moon

When I was a teenager, I happened upon the autistic community. This was sometime circa 1998. I had oral diagnoses of autism and ‘idiot savant’, paper diagnoses of PDDNOS, atypical autism, developmental disorder not otherwise specified, central nervous system disorder not otherwise specified, and a whole huge list of psychiatric labels both accurate and inaccurate. I’d met other autistic people, even discovered one with enough in common with me that we could just communicate without the need of speech. I’d read a little Donna Williams and a little Temple Grandin here and there. But I didn’t really know what autism was and how it applied to me. Especially because nobody ever really talked to me about what it meant to be autistic — not explicitly.

Unfortunately, one of the first conversations I ran into in an autism discussion group, changed my view of things towards the… let’s just say… less responsible for my own actions and their consequences. Most autistic adults have some sense of social propriety. Mine was badly broken from, among other things, years in the psych system.

Then I encountered a conversation that went something like this. Mike and Jeff will be the names of two autistic people, Annie and Barbara will be the name of two parents. I don’t remember any of their real names.

Mike and Jeff are carrying on an obnoxious, pointless argument that is disrupting the entire discussion group.

Annie tells them to knock it off, that they’re disrupting the group and need to be nicer to each other and quit flaming each other over stupid shit.

Barbara turns to Annie (virtually) and says something like this:

Don’t you remember when our children were very young and couldn’t talk at all? Well here are two adults who have the same thing our children have. And look at them! They’re commnicating! Can you believe it? Leave them alone, the way they’re communicating may be unpleasant for us to look at, but remember how hard it is for our sons to communicate, and these two adults with autism can communicate well enough to fight like this. This is what we want for our sons! Celebrate it!

I was thrilled in every wrong possible way. I was always getting told off for my social ineptitude, and now I’d stumbled upon a place where the bar was set so low that just communicating was seen as an accomplishment, no matter how rude or disruptive the communication was . I thought it meant I wasn’t really responsible for what I said as long as I said something, anything at all. I was totally wrong, but at the time I was thrilled. No more being chastised. I was so very wrong.

So when I first started joining autism groups, I let it all hang out. I remember this one chatroom. At the time, I thought I was doing great there. Years later, the channel owner told me that everyone on the channel had asked her to throw me off for “trolling” — they didn’t think even an autistic person would have social skills bad enough not to grasp what I was doing wrong. But I really and truly was that dense.

As an example, when i was feeling a certain way, I would preprogram text to quote music, TV shows, or things I’d written in the past, that echoed how I was feeling in some way. For as long as I was feeling that way, I’d continue to repeat the same stuff, flooding the chatroom and making it unusable for everyone else.

Whenever the moderators would try and stop me, conversations would go something like this:

MOD: Mel, this is a channel where autistic people need the freedom to be able to communicate…

MEL: Yeah, and I’m an autistic person, and I’m communicating, right?

MOD: You’re making it hard for other autistic people to communicate.

MEL: But… I’m autistic, and I’m communicating, so the channel is fulfilling its purpose.

I really and truly did not get the effect I had on other people. Fortunately, one of the channel owners noticed this and began the years-long, difficult, thankless task of teaching me manners, teaching me to behave like a decent human being towards other human beings. I can’t thank her enough.

Anyway, back in the bad old days (when it came to my social skills, not that I’m claiming perfection now, but they were bad back then)… two people approached me about taking part in some writing project. And I’m ashamed to say that I actually said the following to them:

I’m not really interested in collaborating right now. If you have opinions of your own, use them!

They tried to explain to me how inexcusably rude it was to treat people at least twice my age as if they had n life experiences or opinions to discuss. I didn’t get it. I thought they were just giving me crap for being young, not explaining something that’s always rude, no matter why.

Anyway, I’ve learned a lot since then. My social skills are far from perfect, but they’re not nearly as embarrassing to think about as my initial reactions around other auties online.

So.

Um.

In recent years I read a book.

It’s by one of the authors that I rudely told, “If you have opinions of your own, use them.”

And it’s a pretty good book. I collect books by autistic people. A lot of them fall into the same category as this one. Autistic people call them autiebiographies — autobiographies and memoirs by autistic people. Some are good, some are bad. Some are unique and original, others can barely be discerned one from the other.

And I can say that Kimberly Gerry-Tucker’s book Under the Banana Moon is one of the more interesting ones. It has many unique qualities that make it stand out from the average autiebiography, although i couldn’t tell you exactly what they are. Here’s what I wore a year ago:

Kimberly Gerry-Tucker has a book out.

And although I have not finished it, I strongly recommend it to anyone who knows her.

Things I love about Kimberly:

She’s a genuine nonconformist.  She doesn’t try not to conform – she’s not an anti-conformist.  She just doesn’t conform, and refuses to take any shit for it.  Every year around Labor Day she used to defend the MDA Jerry Lewis Telethon in groups of people steeped in the disability rights view of the telethon.  I don’t agree with her stance on the Telethon, but I totally admire her for sticking to her viewpoint in the face of such well-researched opposition.

She’s one of those people who has been forced to function beyond her limitations.  Like, in our own ways, Draggle, me, AnneC, Donna, and lots of others.  It often involves juggling, always barely managing not to drop the ball before the next one comes in, often actually dropping balls, having to start over, falling apart, falling to pieces, but always getting back up again.  This is a trait i’ve seen in many autistic people, in many types  of autistic people, and I guess I like seeing it, despite the pain, because it’s so familiar to me and my friends.

She’s eccentric without trying to be.

She’s a mime. She feels that when she is dressed as a mime she can be more ‘herself’ than she can when dressing and acting more ‘normally’.  I think that’s cool and amazing.  You can see her mime outfit here.  And there’s something about being a mime that just says, “I genuinely don’t care what you think, I’m going to be myself at all costs.”

She’s just Kimberly, and I can’t help but like her even though we have nothing more than a passing and not always positive relationship on email lists.

Her book is out on Kindle.  It’s called Under the Banana Moon: A True Story of Living, Loving, Loss, and Asperger’s.

So I strongly recommend this book if it, or the author, sounds interesting to you.   I certainly found it interesting to know what was going on in the background at her home during all the time I knew her online. We were never close, but I’ve always respected her.

And here’s what I wrote in response to an ask from her after she found my note:

She asked:

I understand you’ve read my memoir Under The Banana Moon (living, loving, loss and aspergers)? A google search elicited a response that the title of my book is mentioned in a Nabokev work. Although Nabokev does mention the moon a lot, I can’t come across the specific quote. Do you have it? If it’s true, I like my chosen title even more:) We are all connected somehow. Anyway, how did you like my book?

Then I responded:

I loved it, I felt like I got to know you better than I’ve gotten to know you online, and I always have liked reading your writing. You’re one of a certain sort of person I’ve known (and been), who manages to do a lot more than you “should” be capable of given your actual abilities, often by using one ability as others fall apart, which confuses people in many different ways. I like reading things by people who do that because it makes me feel less alone and I can relate to it. I also liked getting to know more about your family.

I’ve never read Nabokev so I have no idea about the banana moon thing.

Anyway, I found her book on my Kindle today when I was looking for someone else. And I was happy to remember reading it. Then i was deeply uneasy the way I get — kind of ashamed — when I remember how I used to treat people before other autistic people taught me basic manners. So this is just a reminder that her book exists, and if you’re into interesting autiebiographies that are a little different from the usual ones, you’ll probably like it. And if you know the author in any capacity at all, it’s well worth reading to get to know her better. And I’m glad I can talk to her now without accidentally insulting her. Because that felt bad even then, to not be able to talk to people without throwing in something that would alienate damn near anyone. I’m amazed at the friends who stuck around through that time. They must have had really thick skin, or a really strong belief I could change. Whatever it was, I’m grateful.

[hyperlexichypatia]

I've seen basically two response arguments to Kennedy's slurs about autistic people being unable to pay taxes, have a job, play baseball, go on a date, write a poem, or use the toilet.

Both the responses are good and necessary, but I think they're incomplete. The two response arguments are essentially: 1. "That's not true, there are plenty of autistic people who have jobs and go on dates and play baseball," and 2. (largely in response to 1.) "Autistic people deserve acceptance and dignity even if they can't pay taxes or write poetry or use the toilet; people's value isn't determined by their abilities or productivity."

And, again, both of these responses are true and good and necessary. But what I'm not seeing people talk about enough is why Kennedy listed those specific skills, and what he's trying to imply with them. Because, see, when people are reduced to a dehumanized stereotype, "Not everyone is like that dehumanized stereotype" isn't sufficient, and neither is "Even people who are like that dehumanized stereotype deserve respect." The problem is the dehumanization. So let's look at the list of things we supposedly can't do, which Kennedy is using to conjure an image of "Inhuman Unthinking Blob."

Having a job. This is the big one. In American culture, your value, your personhood, is solely dependent on Your Job. Are you a valuable cog in the capitalist machine, or are you a cheap cog in the capitalist machine, or are you so worthless you're not even in the capitalist machine, and therefore have no reason to be alive? So it's good and necessary and important to spell out "A person doesn't have to have a job to be a person with dignity and rights." But there's a larger question out there, which is: What, exactly, constitutes "a job"? Yes, absolutely, everyone should have dignity and rights (and material needs like guaranteed housing, food, and consensual healthcare). But also, most disabled people, including ""severely"" disabled people, can and do perform productive labor benefiting their communities. It's just often labor that capitalist society doesn't classify as "a job," like caregiving, studying, or making art. It's important to say that people shouldn't need "a job" in order to deserve rights or resources. It's also important to point out that disabled people have been doing labor this whole time, just without the dignity, rights, or pay associated with "a job." In a socialist utopia where everyone had their material needs guaranteed, labor would still be done, and a lot of it would still be done by disabled people. That's important. Disabled people's contributions to society matter. And erasing that is something ableists do on purpose -- excluding the labor done by disabled people from the category of "job" is integral to excluding disabled people from the category of "productive" and thus the category "worthy of life."

Paying taxes. This is the most transparently ridiculous one, because absolutely everybody in the U.S. pays taxes. Poor people pay taxes (too much). Rich people pay taxes (nowhere near enough). Undocumented immigrants pay taxes. You buy a Snickers? It's priced $1.79 but you pay $1.92. That's a tax. You live somewhere? You're paying property taxes. You rent your home? How do you think your landlord pays their property taxes? From your rent. You're paying property taxes. You have a crappy underpaid minimum wage job? You're paying FICA. Everybody pays taxes. What Kennedy probably means to imply is "They're too poor to owe federal income taxes." Politicians love pretending that "taxes" means "federal income taxes" so they can claim to "lower taxes" while shifting the tax burden somewhere else (cf. Trump's attempt to claim that tariffs aren't taxes). And. And also. There's another subtle implication in there, that I see a lot from parents and ableists. Because of the deep intersection of ableism and classism, Kennedy is implying "They're too poor to owe federal income taxes" (therefore they're inferior) but also "They're not smart enough to do something complicated like file a tax return." When ableists talk about disabled people who "can't take care of themselves" or specifically "can't pay their bills" or "can't pay taxes," they're intentionally trying to conflate an economic state (having enough money to pay bills/taxes) with a cognitive ability (having the skills/executive function to manage money, budget, pay bills on time, or file a tax return). Kennedy probably doesn't file his own tax return either. I'm sure he has an accountant for that. Presumed-neurotypical people are allowed to do that. The world is full of rich people who lack executive function or money-management skills, whose wealth insulates them from the consequences of that, because they can either afford to just lose money, or they can afford to hire someone to handle it for them. The world is also full of poor people for whom one missed payment has ruined them. The world is also full of disabled people for whom one missed payment has gotten them declared mentally incompetent, institutionalized, or placed under guardianship -- by abled family members who probably hire an accountant to manage their own money. Again, all this is deliberate. Kennedy and other ableists/classists/eugenicsts are intentionally trying to conflate "lacks money," "lacks money management abilities/skills," and "lacks General Intelligence" as one more-or-less interchangeable phenomenon (Note: If you've read this far and haven't figured out my angle yet: There is no such thing as "General Intelligence" and the very concept is harmful).

Write a poem. Again, this is deliberately ambiguous wording -- pretty much anyone can write a poem, including people who can't write or speak. Have you ever expressed an idea in which the words you used had an additional meaning on top of their literal meaning? Boom, you can write a poem. Maybe not a good one. But Kennedy didn't say that autistic people's poetry is bad -- plenty of neurotypical people's poetry is bad too, after all. There is a somewhat positive stereotype floating around that neurodivergent people are creative. We may be tragic, burdens on society, our parents' heartbreak, worthless, stupid, subhuman, but at least we're creative. Probably due to being more animal-like, "closer to nature." And neurobigots like Kennedy absolutely hate this stereotype. No matter how much dehumanization the "positive" stereotype is rooted in, we cannot have any positive attributes at all. They must never let us forget that we have no redeeming value whatsoever. We must be rendered as completely lacking in thought, feelings, expression, and creation. I'm seeing some echos of 18th century racism, too -- a common belief among 18th century white Europeans was that even if non-Europeans were superficially clever, they could produce no "higher culture," no great art or poetry or literature, because they were intrinsically a lower tier of human. This seems to be the root of Kennedy's implication -- not that autistic people "can't" write poetry (anyone can), or that autistic people are bad at writing poetry (most beginners are), but that an autistic person's creative output cannot constitute true poetry, true "high culture," because it comes from an inferior mind.

Play baseball. This is an especially slippery one, because like writing poetry, it's a learned skill with gradations of skill level, not an intrinsic ability that someone does or doesn't have. Most autistic people aren't pro-level baseball players, but neither are most allistic people. And again, Kennedy didn't say "Autistic people are bad a baseball." He said that we would never play baseball. "Has ever played or will ever play baseball" is such a ridiculously low bar that even I can meet it. Technically speaking, I can play baseball. I have played baseball, in school gym class. I know how! You sit there minding your business until it's your turn to stand up, and then someone hands you a bat, and then someone throws a ball, and you're supposed to try to hit the ball with the bat, and in theory, after you fail three times, you're supposed to be allowed to sit back down again and go back to imagining wild self-insert fanfic, but the coach gives you "extra tries" out of pity, so you have to humiliate yourself with five or six attempts instead of three. Yeah. I can play baseball. So what's Kennedy going for with this one? Baseball in the U.S. is associated with two things: American identity, and idyllic midcentury childhood. If autistic people can't participate in America's Pastime, can we really even be Americans? Do we really count as citizens? I don't think Kennedy is personally, ideologically all that committed to xenophobia himself; he's just hitched his wagon to a deeply xenophobic administration because they indulge his medical conspiracy theories. But he knows how to align his goals to the administration's. He knows that his boss is deeply committed to narrowing and restricting who counts as "an American," who's not really part of "our culture," who's not really a part of baseball and hot dogs and the Fourth of July, if you know what I mean. Okay, okay. Maybe I'm reaching with this one. But I'm definitely not reaching with the other association he's going for: Idyllic Midcentury Childhood. All kids play baseball. By which I mean, all boys play baseball. I'm not sure Kennedy knows that girls can play it too, or that he cares. The point is, baseball is part of childhood, and autistic people are never children. We don't play, we don't learn, we don't go through developmental stages, we're just forever Mindless Blobs. That's why things that would be considered cruelty if done to neurotypical children aren't cruelty when they're done to us. We're not really children. We never become adults, either -- how can we, if we don't go through childhood first? You can tell we're subhuman because we don't go through the universal experiences of Real People Life.

Go on a date. Okay. This one. This is the one where I get actively angry at the well-meaning, "inclusive" responses. "Just because an autistic person has high support needs and can't do XYX doesn't mean --" no. Stop right there. There is no such thing as a disabled person who "can't" date. There is no impairment or disability that prevents someone from dating. There are people -- autistic and otherwise, disabled and otherwise -- who for whatever reason, choose not to pursue dating. Maybe they're aromantic, maybe they're loners, maybe they have religious objections, maybe dating just isn't something they're interested in. Fine. That's their choice. But there is no such thing as a disabled person who "can't" date. There is no such thing as a disability that renders people incapable of romantic relationships. There is no such fucking thing as being "too disabled" or "too severe" or "too profound" or "too high support needs" to have a romantic relationship if two or more people want one. That is not a thing that exists. That is a thing ableists made up. There is no such thing as an autistic person who "can't" go on a date. There are autistic people who aren't allowed to go on dates, because their family or caregivers control them, infantilize them, restrict their freedoms, or treat them as mindless blobs. But all disabled people (yes, all) can pursue romantic relationships. All disabled people (yes, all) deserve the human right to pursue romantic relationships if they choose to. With other disabled people. With abled people. With whomever. And yeah, dating doesn't necessarily have to be romantic or sexual, but let me be perfectly clear -- disabled people, autistic people, "high support needs" autistic people have a right to have sex, too. A multiply disabled autistic person who needs 24/7 assistance deserves the absolute, unreserved right to have wild, kinky, balls-to-the-wall, whole-chicken sex with the entire starting lineup of the Detroit Lions, if xe so chooses to, and if said Lions are on board. We should not accept the premise that there is any such thing as a disabled person who "can't" go on a date.

Use a toilet without assistance. This is the Kennedy playbook trump card, but unlike some of the other claims, this one is actually true. There's no such thing as a disabled person who "can't" date, but yes, there are in fact plenty of disabled people, including autistic people, who need help with using the toilet. So what's Kennedy going for here? He's trying to evoke two things: Disgust and infantilization. We have a visceral disgust around excretory functions. Needing to eliminate waste reminds us that we're animals made of meat, not the higher intellectual beings we pretend to be. Everyone poops. So we do it in private, we describe it with euphemisms, and if someone needs help with it, well, they're not keeping up their end of the social compact to collectively pretend we're not animals with animal bodily functions. So people who need assistance with the waste process are disgusting, subhuman, a violation of imagined purity. And of course, they're babies. Babies wear diapers. Babies need help using the toilet. So an older child or adult who needs diapers or toileting help is basically a big baby. We have entire election cycles centered on "Which candidate has incontinence issues?" as a proxy for "Which candidate is a big baby unfit to lead?" as though someone's bladder leakage has any bearing on their wisdom or policy positions. And of course, since people who need help with toileting Are Babies, we're meant to assume that they can't do any of those other things, either. They can't even use the toilet, let alone write poetry or go on a date. In reality, plenty of people who need toileting help are writing poetry and going on dates. One of the biggest misconceptions that holds disabled people back from education or, in some cases, from basic communication, is this myth of linear "developmental stages" -- that if someone isn't "smart enough" to master an "easier/earlier" skill, then they can't possibly be "smart enough" to master a completely unrelated skill that some abled person thinks of as "more advanced." This is literally the primary barrier to communication access for speech-disabled people, and the reason nonspeaking people who type to communicate are so often disbelieved -- if someone isn't "smart enough" to master a "baby skill" like talking, they can't possibly be "smart enough" to read and write! Nevermind that for many speech disabled people, reading and writing are much easier than speaking. And if someone isn't "smart enough" to use the toilet unassisted, they can't possibly learn any advanced topics at all, because they must the "mind of a baby." (The only people with the minds of babies are babies. A 50 year old with incontinence has the mind of a 50 year old.)

So. To sum up: Kennedy is intentionally evoking the concept of autistic people as The Abject Unthinking, and neither "Plenty of autistic people can do those things he says we can't do" nor "Disabled people deserve respect and dignity even if they can't do those things" fully addresses the dehumanization he's trying to conjure. Maybe I'm just jaded, too, about calls for "respect and dignity" for disabled people that don't challenge the concept of The Abject Unthinking. I see behavioral therapists, institution staff, and parents pursuing adult guardianship talking about "respect and dignity." I see articles about how to restrain and forcibly drug people with "respect and dignity." Ableists literally murder disabled people in cold blood in the name of "respect and dignity." I don't know what "respect and dignity" means to these people, but it's sure not synonymous with "bodily autonomy" or "civil rights." By this point, I consider "respect and dignity" about as meaningful as "thoughts and prayers." All disabled people can, and deserve the right to, express themselves. All disabled people can, and deserve the right to, make their own decisions about their own bodies. All disabled people can, and deserve the right to, participate in their communities. All disabled people can, and deserve the right to, pursue relationships with other people of their choice.

[estrellasrojas]

Remember when AOC said this. The elitism is so explicit with identifying political conviction and academia too

[sapphi-spaghetti]

[castielssuperhell]

original post x

[realsocialskills]

Disability-affirming growth mindset

Children are often taught to think “I can’t do that *yet*” as a form of encouraging growth mindset. That’s a really useful strategy when it’s applicable, and it also needs some nuance in order to be more disability-affirming. 

Growth mindset has to be grounded in reality.

Growth means that I am always learning new things and developing new skills and getting better at things. It doesn’t mean doubling down on pursuing impossible dreams; it means doing real things. 

Sometimes growth mindset means thinking “I can’t do that *yet*,” and continuing to try until I can.

Sometimes it’s more like, “This isn’t working. Maybe I need to do it another way.”

Or: “This isn’t working, and maybe it’s not going to work. What else can I do?”

Or: “I can’t do *that*, but I can do the important part a different way.”

Or: “I can do that with help.” and/or “Let’s figure out what supports would make it possible to do that.”

Or: “We can do that collaboratively, together.”

Or: “I could do that with appropriate assistive technology. Let’s figure out if some exists and/or if there’s something we could invent.”

In those instances, realizing that something isn’t going to work is part of how we find out what *can* work.

There are also cases in which growth mindset means realizing that something may not be a good use of our time and effort and resources. A skill that is broadly useful to nondisabled people might not be worth it to me, even if I’m technically capable of doing it. (For instance, handwriting is a useful skill for most people, but it’s always been so hard for me that it’s not really worth it. Losing the ability to  handwrite more than a few words at a time has freed up my abilities to do other things, like focus on typing words.)

There’s something powerful about seeing your body as it really is and working with it rather than against it. Sometimes figuring out what isn’t possible or what’s not worth the cost in time and effort is how we find areas where we can grow and flourish. 

Growth mindset means that I *don't sabotage my growth* by wasting time and effort pursuing impossible things. I don’t stand on a chair or a roof and expect believing in myself to make it possible to use my arms as wings and fly. If I want to fly, I need an airplane, and that’s ok. 

At the same time, I think that claiming the power of “yet” is really important for disabled people, and especially for people with developmental disabilities. 

Sometimes there can be a lot of pressure to see ourselves as incapable of doing things every time disability makes it harder or means we need to do things differently or it’s not obvious whether or how we could do the thing. 

Sometimes we get pressure not to try things unless there’s some certainty that we will be able to do them. (And for something as complex and poorly understood as developmental disabilities, there’s rarely much certainty. Having other people’s doubts limit what we’re allowed to try makes the world very, very small.)

Sometimes disability-affirming growth mindset means saying “I can’t do that, let’s do something else,” and sometimes it means saying, “I might be able to do that, and I’d like to try.” Sometimes it means saying, “I want to keep trying even though it’s harder for me and I’m not catching on as quickly and no one seems to know how to teach me.” or “I don’t know if this is going to work but I think it could, and at this point, I’d like to keep trying.” Or, “I know most people learn this by the time they’re four, and I know I’m much older than that, but I’d like to try to learn this too.”

Sometimes it means an adult claiming the right to learn how to read, or finding a dance studio where they’re willing to slow down enough for them to learn. Sometimes it means practicing a new skill in private while you’re figuring out if it’s something that makes sense for you. Sometimes it means asking around to other disabled people to see what their strategies have been. Sometimes it means demanding your right to accessibility and accommodations even when others don’t think you belong and don’t see you as capable of doing things in the space you want to be in.

[nematodeneedles]

politoed's back sprite in gen 4 looks like they're asking for uppies…..

[halalchampagnesocialist]

I’m just thinking out loud here but i think so much of the rise of the far right and neo nazis online has very much to do with the anti-democratisation of the internet. obviously pockets have always existed on every site ever but I’m old enough to remember when they had a reputation for mostly being on 4chan. Over the recent years, we’ve seen twitter become the new 4chan due to elon removing any sort of moderation and forcing right wing content upon most people, also paying people for popular content leading to rise in grifting, effectively making the site an organising space for these fascists.

I don’t think this is inherently unique to twitter tho because if we look at how much the internet has changed, we really went from being able to curate what we see on our feeds to having algorithms force content on us. algorithms can sometimes be handy in exposing us to content we’re interested in but so many of these algorithms don’t function in a vacuum because I’m also thinking about how a lot of left wing content has been heavily policed on social media long before any removal of moderation. meta is a great example of this and a fitting one now that Zuckerberg has announced he’ll allow for absolute free speech on his platforms.

and then of course, we can’t forget the commercialisation of the internet. Not only trying to push things like subscriptions on sites that were previously completely free (see twitter example above) but also so much content existing behind paywalls. news and journalism is an apt example of this. i think also the fact that running a website isn’t profitable or wasn’t meant to be is also a big reason why the internet has dwindled down to people being on the same 3-5 sites/apps and also the subsequent introduction of subscriptions/memberships.

there’s probably a more coherent / nuanced argument to be made but i think these are the things that jump out at me.

[crunchbuttsteak]

Imagine this whole post in the TikTok text to speech voice.