I don't feel like responding to your entire reblog and also I'm blocking you but CVI is NOT visual processing disorder
Context (link)
Sources will be at the bottom after disturbing arguments are addressed.
I'm going to respond to this assuming there is a missing "a", as I never said CVI is VPD, I said it's a type. That's probably clear but I'll make it crystal
Could you clarify any particular reason as to why you believe you are the arbiter whose opinion should be regarded above all else? I welcome the opportunity to be educated and proven wrong, but you have yet to support your original claim and still fail to provide any evidence regarding this one.
Saying a disabled individual knows nothing about the condition they literally have? Wow. Just wow.
You previously called someone obsessed and implied they were stupid for reblogging with a response and leaving a comment on your post. If that's considered obsession, what would you call yourself, who has subblogged someone after you left an ask saying you've blocked them?
And then I find this?
Are you actually fucking kidding me? I can't believe I fell for someone's obviously bad faith bullshit as you clearly believe that those who have disabilities understanding senses have sensory disabilities. How is sensory processing disorder NOT a sensory disability when you blatantly include one of the manifestations???
I find it notable you did not respond to stitchieau-the-actual-one or trashiesttrashboy’s points like this, instead, you opted to fabricate a quote as a personal attack to mock Stitch as if they had said “I'm as dumb as rocks”, when one could've easily pointed out how dyspraxia is a form of SPD, not the other way around.
Very interesting, it seems your motivation for blocking could very well stem from the desire for the inherent concealment of concerns about misinformation and bigoted biases, particularly after having sanism and hindrance to disability activism pointed out. Funny how the sanist comments suddenly disappeared after I mentioned them, shame I didn't screenshot it.
You "don't feel like" responding to my (or any respondent, really) reblog because you HAVE nothing to respond with.
SOURCES N SHIT
I wasn't just saying it for the hell of it.
The Child Neurology Foundation (link) describes CVI as visual processing disorder. The American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology & Strabismus (link) explains that in CVI, "the message is not properly processed or integrated".
The Pediatric Cortical Visual Impairment Society (link) notes that "CVI is a problem with the visual processing centers and visual pathways of the brain, not the eye." They continue on another page (link), "the eyes can see, but the brain can't interpret the visual world.” Perkins (link) says it is "caused by damage to the brain’s visual pathways or visual processing areas," and that "the brain has trouble processing what the eyes can see".
The Eye & Ear Foundation of Pittsburgh (link) states "it can involve any visual processing part of the brain," and that it "affects the visual processing centers in the brain". The National Eye Institute (link) drafted a definition in a workshop sponsored by NIH, defining CVl as "a spectrum of visual impairments caused by an underlying structural and/or functional brain abnormality that affects the development of visual function and processing'":
This PubMed article (link) states that “[the] broad consensus definition embraces the wide range of damage or dysfunction of the neural pathways, centers and networks involved in visual information processing," highlighting how this particularly impacts the visual brain areas “involved in integration, identification, analysis and interpretation of […] visual information […]." Given this complexity, it follows that “disturbance of any element of these complex mental visual processes can occur in a range of patterns of CVI", including "impaired processing of visual details", showcasing how "cortical or cerebral visual impairment can interfere with any or all aspects of visual processing."
Another study (link) mentions that "an important aspect of CVI are visual processing dysfunctions (VPD)" processing dysfunction is synonymous with processing disorder.
A different study (link) notes "CVI can be characterized as a condition of 'dorsal stream dysfunction' and represents the most common type of visual processing impairment observed in children with this condition.”
Boston children's hospital (link) lists autism as a confusing diagnostic entity, probably because dorsal stream function were significantly associated (link) with autistic traits.
This study (link) calls CVI a "visual processing disorder"
The only argument I can possibly interpret to be made in good faith would be pointing out how cerebral is different from cortical, which is not what you've done. It isn't a strong argument anyways, as cerebral is often substituted for or used interchangeably with cortical "to more globally encompass these higher order visual processing deficits and their presumed association with damaged areas of the visual processing pathway".
That study (link) continues by explaining how “a practical and useful conceptual framework in characterizing observed deficits in CVI is to incorporate the two-stream hypothesis of visual processing". Within this framework, “impairment of dorsal visual stream processing would impact upon an individual’s ability to process and interact with complex visual scenes […]". This concept is supported by recent studies investigating “individual pathways implicated in the processing of visual information between cortical areas of the brain with the aim of establishing a possible association between the structural integrity of these pathways and visual dysfunction in CVI.” Those studies reveal that “the observed reductions in the structural integrity associated with the key extra geniculostriate visual pathways implicated in visual processing help provide for a neuroanatomical basis for the visual dysfunctions observed in individuals with CVI”
CVI Scotland (link) has discussed a paper titled "Central Auditory Processing Disorder: The Hearing Equivalent of CVI".
Again, I welcome being wrong! I love being educated (: but you have given absolutely 0 indicator that this is anything more than your personal opinion sneered out of frustrations taken out on fellow disabled individuals (oh that's right, you just think they have issues)
So I had started watching Dimension 20 at the recommendation of a friend because I heard they were somewhat queer friendly and while I liked Unsleeping City I cannot in good conscious recommend Fantasy High to anyone. There is a constant treatment of queer people as inherently degenerate throughout the entire show, baseless negative assumptions of queer minorities as a way to keep them lesser than their cishet counterparts. The first red flag to me was Emily's attitude towards Tracker in episode 6, constantly trying steer Kristen who is a lesbian away from a girl that she likes at bar by telling her that she isn't for her and is seemingly a little too pleased when Tracker gets hurt. The next red flag was Siobhan, as Adaine being fine with a seemingly straight Fig winking at her but saying that Kristen doing it is creepy, implying that Kristen is somehow a creep because she likes girls so that must mean that she's obviously into her, which keep in mind is after Kristen had just started to break away from her religion and realise that she is lesbian so good way to bully her back into the closet. They really just don't want Kristen to be happy it seems.
But the final straw for me was when they decided to all automatically assume that Tracker was an older woman preying on a younger girl when she's just a teenager like Kristen is. Now I want to know why this is ok and hot apparently (watch from 1:05:30 to 1:06:50)
But this is somehow cause for alarm (watch from 1:08:00 to 1:09:10)
Fig, a teenager making out with an adult man is literally just paedophilia and I'm not sure how anyone thought that was a good idea in the first place. Also note worthy is that this isn't even first instance of something like this, Fig flirts with her much older principle on the regular. But it's treated as a joke and even implied to be hot or whatever, meanwhile everyone is so worried about Kristen because they are assuming that Tracker is an adult woman picking up a teenage girl when that very obviously isn't the case but they even make perception checks because they are so sure of it? Yeah the homophobic hypocrisy here is incredibly gross but unfortunately way too common. Every accusation is a confession and queerphobic bigots like to throw around the "Groomer" word to distract from their own paedophilic deviancy. They want to get away with all this actually morally bad stuff while making queer people feel like they have to walk on egg shells, essentially bullying them into holding in their feelings and robbing them of a normal, happy life. 2 girls of the same age loving eachother? Horrible, degenerate. 16 year old girl flirting and making out with adult men? Perfectly reasonable apparently. Are the Dimension 20 cast a bunch of queerphobic hypocrites and disgusting paedophiles? I don't think so but they've been infected with certain aspects of that mindset. Honestly I'm just sick of this bigoted hypocrisy and I'm not going to be finishing Fantasy High.
"unfollowing transmisogynists" - an intersex individual with whom I have witnessed over 10 vague posts be written about due to the intersexism in numerous posts
