#disabled theory

[autisticautonomy]

"disability isn't a social construct because I'd still be dis-" Hey maybe before you poo-poo the entire foundation of critical disability studies learn the difference between "socially constructed" and "not real". You can't pride yourself on being "pro Disabled" and not have any actual interest in Disabled theory or liberation.

[autisticautonomy]

As glad as I am that the neurodiversity movement has gained traction, it is becoming apparent that many people online, especially nondisabled people, don't know what neurodiversity or neurodiversity theory actually is, don't know that it has any relation to the social model of disability, and just think it's just a polite euphemism for mentally disabled people as opposed to being a political ideology.

"Neurdivergencies ARE inherently all disorders and ARE all illnesses and we DO need a cure for ALL of them and disorder IS an objective biological category and not a social construct AT ALL" ok so it's apparent that while you are well meaning you do not actually believe in neurodiversity (yet) and may not have even read its Wikipedia page. If you operate under the medical model of disability you cannot operate under the neurodiversity model. The whole point of neurodiversity is that it is an explicit refutation of the medical model and the pathologisation of neurodivergence.

That being said, please join the fight for liberating neurodivergent people and mentally disabled people in general, please do familiarize yourself with the basics of the theory behind it (preferably not by social media, that's done enough damage) we want you here fighting alongside us. The medical model won't liberate you from the system that oppresses you and denies you your rights because it is the system. The master's tools cannot dismantle the master's house.

Become anti capitalist while you're at it, systemic ableism is inseparable from capitalist oppression and our exploitability or lack thereof as workers. Why aren't we given the things we need to live happily and autonomously by default? Because it's more cost effective to convince us we are the problem and let us suffer. Because under capitalism we are sick and defective because our differences affect our ability to generate shareholder value. Disability justice is not temporary accomodations it is systemic overthrow.

[autisticautonomy]

Judy Singer did not coin Neurodiversity, Judy Singer is not the mother of Neurodiversity, Judy Singer did not start Neurodiversity, Judy Singer did not invent Neurodiversity. Neurodiversity as a movement, a term, and a community was a collaborative invention by Autistic activist groups online. Judy Singer using the word in passing does not mean she invented it.

Seriously, this is terrible for trying to understand Neurodiversity, because people are ignoring it's uniquely Autistic origins and treating Judy Singer as the sole authority of a term and movement she did not invent, erasing Autistic voices in the process.

[autisticautonomy]

The pool metaphor for disability is too simple. Disability is complex and we should treat it that way.

I saw this argument presented by a great Autistic about why Autism is a disability (which I agree with, I also think Autistics are disabled!!), but I disagreed with the way it was explained, and some of the reasoning. This person is great and I don't even know if they made up the metaphor, and I'm not going to mention them by name because I think that's not good to do?

The metaphor went like this: people are like swimmers in a pool. Some people swim differently, and they are fine and they get a thumbs up. Some people need a lifejacket because they can't swim. Only one needs accomodation. The ones who need accomodation are disabled.

I have some major gripes with this metaphor.

What is swimming differently Vs not swimming?

Whether or not someone can swim differently or if they can't swim at all ultimately doesn't matter in a pool where both groups are unable to participate. Sure, their are fundamental differences, but neither of them can function in this weird fucked up pool, so they're both disabled. That's what actually defines disability.

In real life we aren't given life jackets or thumbs ups and then the playing field is magically leveled. There are people who require assistance in our society that are not disabled because their needs are met automatically. The label of "needing support" only exists because that need isn't always filled.

We can argue about whether we can swim or not all we like, but the fact is, there are only man made differences between being different and inherently needing support. What counts as knowing how to swim is decided by people.

We all inherently need support. But disabled people's needs are treated as case by case individual needs, while non disabled or universal needs are built into the fibre of our society.

We need to stop acting like disability is something that can be identified with a magical birthmark that stays the same no matter what. It's a complex identity deeply related to our society, much like being queer, and how a man topping another man was not queer in ancient Greece.

Is there objective suffering that comes with many disabilities? Absolutely! But this is not what defines whether or not you are disabled. It doesn't matter if your condition is naturally "good" or "bad", because you're going to have a bad time regardless because we don't live in a pool with kind lifeguards, we live in a society run by greed.

Long story short, both the different swimmer and the non swimmer are disabled in a pool that doesn't allow them to swim. They are both subjugated.

This is the social model of disability.