#fetishization of disability

[cripplecharacters]

Hi, I have some questions regarding confusion over a certain topic. First off, I have a character with a severe scarring on the upper right side of their body. I've heard in some tumblr ppsts that such appearance shouldn't be fetished. Then I stumbled across some posts, mentioning how the character can be described as 'pretty with it'.

For sure, I'm trying my best to normalize the looks. Because I have a love interest set up for them and while they don't mind the looks, I feel confused on how to convey their appreciation for the character's looks even with the scarring. They like the character as they are and stuff.

Sorry if this is a lot, I tend to get confused on how to handle such scenarios. And this sort of varying opinions is making me go '???'.

It's okay if you take your time to answer! Have a good day ahead of ya!

Hey!

"Fetishization of a disability" and "thinking that a disabled person is pretty" are two very different things. Despite the somewhat similar sound, they're not connected by much.

In the context of scars, fetishization would be what I would call the "Zuko situation" (yes, I love ATLA as much as the next guy, let me explain)—the scar isn't really a scar, it's more make-up than anything else. It's just the color that changes, it's all sharp edges and intricate shapes, the facial structure stays the exact same. There's no physical symptoms. Essentially, it's permanent body paint.

It fetishizes a disability by making it inaccurate, sometimes almost mystical. You don't see anyone fetishizing how real people with facial burns look like because they only like the idea of it. They don't care for us; they don't care for Face Equality or why we are offended by "villain with scar #32482". It's just a fun splotch of color to add to your OC when you're out of ideas.

Another aspect of fetishization is the "a scar is the worst thing in the whole world", the tragedy porn. It's using a disability for cheap drama. Again; it's inaccurate and exploitative. I don't see writers excited to depict my "coming to terms with my facial difference as a teenager, and eventually being proud of it" experience because where's the shock value and pity points? Fetishization, again, is about liking the idea of it, not the real thing.

Describing your character as beautiful, well, isn't any of that.

The point that I tried to make on that post was that a scar is often considered inherently ugly. That it's a stain on someone's beauty, that it would be better if it wasn't there.

"Brown beautiful eyes, thick facial hair, strong cheekbones—he managed to be irresistibly handsome even with that nasty scar going across his nose."

This sucks. It's as if the character's beauty and their disability are contradictory forces that have to fight each other. But in reality, scars and any other visible disabilities are neutral. If the character is pretty, their scar is pretty too. It's a part of them, so how could it not be?

"She was a cute girl; her pastel pink, thinly braided hair framed her face, defying gravity by curling towards her mouth. The burned skin on her lips shifted as she smiled, revealing a tooth gap. She played with her equally pink 'white' cane, holding it between the two fingers she had on her right hand, bopping it against the ground to the rhythm of the song."

This, on the other hand, just states her disability as a part of her person. It's nothing weird or shocking, she's pretty, has a burn on her face, she's blind, she's missing some fingers, she's enjoying the music—it's almost boring when compared to the usual "scar introduction". There's no "even with her horribly burnt face", no "if only she wasn't scarred she would be beautiful", no "poor thing, lost her fingers in a horrific fire"—instead, she is beautiful, and she has scars, and she is having fun. That's it.

This is my best shot at explaining the difference between "fetishization" and "yeah they're pretty :-)" ft. my questionable writing—I hope this makes sense.

I definitely took my time to answer, sorry about that. Thanks for the ask,

mod Sasza

[cripplecharacters]

What are your thoughts on people making random characters albino (especially regardless of their race, even if they aren't black? Would it count as fetishizing under certain ways?

I've heard that albinism can appear in any race group, but I'd just like to know how you view just random characters casually having albinism (even without it being sexualized for fetishized)

Hey!

Casual representation is great. Not just albinism, but disability in general. You don't always have to go into complicated details of "how's it like to be disabled". But just because it isn't meant to be a work about a certain condition doesn't mean you shouldn't do your diligent research—if by making random characters have albinism you mean giving them the "aesthetic" and nothing besides that, it would be fetishization or at least just poor representation.

Also, for this answer I'll be talking about oculocutaneous albinism because I'm fairly sure that's what you were referring to, but please be aware that there are other types, like;

ocular albinism (has 3 different subtypes),

Heřmanský–Pudlák syndrome,

Chédiak–Higashi syndrome,

Griscelli syndrome.

Oculocutaneous albinism also has multiple (7) main subtypes, with some of them splitting further. You should take that into consideration as well when deciding on what kind of albinism your character(s) has. I'm not saying that you should write "X has oculocutaneous albinism, type OCA1b" in your book, but it will help to inform you what their needs and symptoms could be.

Another thing I will mention is that the word "albino" is generally not the preferred term, and you probably shouldn't use it unless you have albinism yourself. Here's a page on it by the National [USA] Organization for Albinism and Hypopigmentation or this post we reblogged recently.

To make sure that your representation works, you need to understand how albinism works. Even if it's a side or minor character, you should be aware of the symptoms other than just the lack of melanin. Prime example, the extreme majority of characters with albinism in media don't have any vision issues at all, which is not how it is in real life. If you make a character with albinism, you're making a character who is blind or low vision. It's important to research aids and assistive technology, as well as blindness tropes that your character could fall into. For a character that only shows up occasionally, it's still important to show things like a white cane, their light sensitivity, them having to avoid the sun.

If that's your approach to "making random characters be disabled" then you should be good. A lot of disabled characters end up boxed into specific tropes (for oculocutaneous albinism: being evil, being emotionless, having magic powers [in a setting where that's not the norm], or being mystified because of their disability) so having e.g. a background character with albinism who has a regular job and shows up in the story from time to time would mitigate that. People with albinism are normal people.

It's true that a person of any race or ethnicity can have albinism. Some types of albinism are more common in certain demographics; for example, Heřmanský–Pudlák syndrome appears much more frequently in Puerto Rico and OCA4 is almost exclusively seen in Japan, and oculocutaneous albinism is more common in sub-Saharan Africa as a whole (which is a giant area, but there's not much statistics about it). But your character could be of any background to have albinism in general.

In short, if the representation would end at "giving a character pale skin, white hair and red eyes*" then it's more fetishistic than representative; that's just using the appearance but ignoring everything else. Keep in mind that it's a medical condition, not an aesthetic. If a character stops having albinism when they dye their hair and wear colored contacts, then that's just a character who happened to have light hair skin and eyes, not a person with albinism. Good representation of disability means showing the disabling parts of it—again, you don't have to go into detail about how it is to have albinism if the character shows up for two chapters, but show them navigating with a white cane or at least wearing clothes that take into account sensitivity to sunlight.

*In real life, people with albinism don't have red eyes. I mention it because it shows up in media all the time. It just screams fetishization because it's not a thing—most people with albinism will have blue, gray, hazel, or brown (!) eyes.

I hope that this helps—if you have a more specific question, feel free to send another ask. I also recommend going through our #albinism representation tag, it might answer some of the questions you might have.

mod Sasza

[cripplecharacters]

hey, that ask about vitligo reminded me - i used to date someone with vitiligo (who struggled with it) and they'd see representation AS fetishisation, since in their mind the recent "widespread acceptance" of vitiligo (eg. in ads) was just some people's "sad attempt to convince others they're more tolerant than they really are". What do you think about that?

Hey, I do get the sentiment, but I don't fully agree with it. [Disclosure, I have a facial difference but not vitiligo specifically].

The recent "boom" in vitiligo representation is largely shallow marketing and often a poor attempt at being inclusive of people with disabilities and facial differences. The media just found the one facial difference that able-bodied people are "fascinated" by and exoticized it to death in order to make them look better. It's not for us. It's a way to seem accepting while cherry-picking the most acceptable representation, because god forbid there was also someone that read as more "obviously disabled/deformed" in their make-up ad or whatever. The way that vitiligo is usually presented is often obviously objectifying; it's like models who have it ARE their vitiligo and don't have anything else to offer, media will often just result to calling them "model with vitiligo does xyz" rather than by their own name. They're not treating the people as actual human beings, so the whole basis of "being inclusive" falls comically flat.

TLDR; vitiligo representation is just the marketing's world hilariously exclusive attempt at checking off the disability inclusion box while still making sure it's the abled audience that's comfortable and aesthetically pleased (because god forbid they weren't). Like, sure, I am glad that they're showing vitiligo as something that shouldn't be hidden, but they're also sending the opposite message to all the other visibly disabled people whose disabilities aren't as "fascinating" to the mainstream, despite the fact that we are all in a similar position and form a community together. It's all about them and none about us.

There's a reason you're not seeing people with neurofibromatosis or severe burns in these mainstream "body positivity! show yourself!" campaigns. They're too much, and the able-bodied audience doesn't like that. People who boast about how "inclusive and accepting they are" don't extend that to everyone, it's only for those that they deem attractive and exotic, as close to an able-bodied, conventionally beautiful person as possible but with something "new" so that they feel good and inspired. It's othering on the very basis of it, and it's a sentiment hardly unique to disability acceptance.

With that said, I don't agree that all representation is fetishization. A huge chunk of it is, sure, I just wrote a mini essay on that. But I think that saying that as a general statement is doing a disservice to both models who are trying to pave the way for other disabled models in the industry and spreading awareness, as well as creators with vitiligo who just want to see themselves in their own work.

Those are my thoughts on this, I'm very much not an expert. Just what I observed in my own life and what I have previously read from FD community members who do have vitiligo

mod Sasza

[cripplecharacters]

Hello! I need advice for writing a character with oculocutaneous albinism who’s a platonic love interest without descriptions of her coming off as fetishising albinism. Her name is Glass and she’s blind and an investigative journalist and will be a reoccurring character in the series. The MC is gay and he describes her very affectionately in the narrative. When she’s introduced he fondly points out (to the reader) a lot of traits about her including things related to her albinism like “slightly wavy snow white hair in a fashionable bob and striking dark blue eyes that gently danced back and forth. One eye was pointing slightly inwards as she tilted her head and smirked at him.” I got the “dancing eyes” idea from a short film made by someone with albinism and nystagmus. I’m going to try and describe other traits about her more, especially about her personality to counter this.

I also have a question that might be too specific? I’m planning on giving her a little brother with ocular albinism, OA. If someone has a daughter with OCA are they more likely to have a son with OA or are the two kinds of albinism genetically unrelated? I wanted to include him to have more then one blind character in the story. Thanks for your time. :) -Anon Blue.

Hey! We don't currently have mods with Albinism, so I'll try my best. I recommend our #albinism representation tag for resources made by people with it.

If you don't put most of the attention of how she looks to her hair or skin color, I think it should be fine. It's okay to mention it—I mean, that's just how she is, would be kinda weird to fully ignore it—but don't make other characters or the narrator gush over her paleness or eye color every time she comes up. Change it up and praise her fashion sense (like you did with her hairstyle), the shape of her nose, how bushy her eyebrows are, or how her gums show when she's smiling instead. Her appearance shouldn't be reduced to just "girl with albinism"—give her other visual traits.

For other descriptors, I would avoid making her "angelic" or "ethereal" because of her disability. Remember to not make it mystic or magical; there's the whole "Magical Albino" thing out here that you should try to avoid.

You mentioning nystagmus and strabismus is great. Those are often forgotten or ignored in characters with albinism because they're not seen as "pretty". I've seen some people describe their nystagmus as "dancing eyes" before too, I think it's a very cool of conveying it.

In general, a good way to avoid fetishization is to include the "boring/mundane" things. When you show the medical parts of albinism like the esotropia, avoiding the sun, having her use a white cane or a guide animal, or using Braille, the representation will be more informed overall and not just an "aesthetic"—which a lot of characters with albinism unfortunately end up being. There's a big difference between a blind journalist guided by a German shepherd who happens to not have melanin and needs a Big Hat, and an evil sniper with bright red eyes and mysterious powers.

In case that Glass is Black, I'd recommend looking at the #albinism tag at @writingwithcolor —it's always good to make sure your descriptions don't come off as unintentionally colorist if you go into her skin color. Things like describing her as more frail or delicate (when compared to other Black characters) would be in poor taste, so look out for that intersectionality if it applies.

The brother with ocular albinism part; those two types are completely unrelated, and it would be incredibly rare (not impossible) for that to happen as far as I know. For reference, almost all OCA (1-7) and OA (1-2) types are caused by completely different genes. The only exception could be OA1 and OA3; we don't currently know what causes the third one, and there's a theory that it's just a different presentation of the first. But I'm not aware of anything like that for oculocutaneous albinism, so if Glass has OCA1 (as I'm assuming from the description), her brother would have OCA1 as well (as opposed to OCA3 or any other subtype) if anything.

One interesting thing that you could do to have him have OA that I never see in fiction is to have him be adopted. I know multiple families who had a child with a certain disability and decided to adopt a second (or third, or fourth...) one with it. I think it could be very cool and would make sense with him being the younger one. Here is an interview/vlog from a real-life family with six adopted blind kids, if you want an example of that.

Wanting to include multiple blind characters is a great idea—if adoption doesn't work for your story, he could have the same type of albinism as Glass or have a non-genetic cause of blindness, like CVI, Retinopathy of Prematurity, glaucoma, or a whole lot of other things.

A story about a blind investigative journalist sounds awesome. Good luck with your writing.

mod Sasza

[cripplecharacters]

hey this might be a bit weird of a question but is it inherently ableist to have a kink for like, fictional depictions of gore? i ask this because a lot of that kind of stuff involves injuries that would be disabling (amputations, eye trauma, etc), but is that fine if the focus is on the injury itself and not the disablement that results? is there nuance to it? should gore art drawn for some form of gratification avoid depictions of limb loss entirely? thanks and im really sorry if this question is too gross

Hello beautiful asker!

Having any sort of kink is not ableist. Period. Fiction is exactly that, where things can exist and no one is being objectified, unwillingly injured, or otherwise so because it's all fake. Now there is a Nuance though, making art for Kink purposes is different than writing a story and it fetishizing your disabled characters. The latter is what we try to prevent because of the harm it does.

Now say you interact with someone who is disabled in real life, and they have a disability or a intersection of any kind that you usually get any sort of gratification from when in fictional media. If you're getting gratification from this person simply existing, objectifying them, non-consensually, and can only see them as a sexual object, then you are then fetishizing disabled people. Kink is about consent, trust, community, etc. Disabled people have kinks too! Some disabled people have kinks that intersect with their disabilities! The main part is the consent and not objectifying people for simply trying to living.

We have a post talking about sexuality and disability, as well has a whole tag on the #fetishization of disability. We also have a post about Body Horror and its intersectionality with disability. The reason I'm mentioning this is because body horror, kink, Whump, all sort of overlap at some point for some people and when we put disability into the mix there is a similar nuance to it all.

One more thing to mention (which is more Tumblr specific) but I know there are a few issues of the actual Tags (not the general Search function) between the communities, again because of the overlap. I would be weary and talk with your other fellow kinksters about tags for specific kinks that are disability related. Again I know there's an overlap but just trying is better than not trying at all.

In summary: There is ableism, but there is a line and as long as that line of kink to fetishization doesn't pass, you're fine.

~ Mod Virus 🌸

[midrashic]

Guest Blogging from Miss Cutie Patootie: I Read John Green, It Wasn't That Great

I'm so fucking tired of things like The Fault in Our Stars or this new ABC Family show glorifying cancer, like it's this cool trend and it makes you an inspirational little no. Fucking hell. It makes you a depressed hopeless asshole and it's not cool and it's not fun it's a fucking train wreck and it is not okay for people to think that they fucking understand because they don't, they read a 200 page book that made them think cancer can make them special and interesting and fuck it all.

-- sincerely, someone who has firsthand experience of how cancer sucks, four times over