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)
Making my own post cause I'm sure op doesn't wanna hear it
While I agree it's important to just. Have wheelchairs. Have mobility aids of any kind present and not circumvented. I think it'd be fun to have some people use fantasy solutions and some people use real mobility aids. Because how people's disabilities affect them and how they deal with them is very personal. It's based on needs, preferences, financial ability, ect. And so I think it would reflect the reality of disability even better!
I do think it's important to have rep that isn't mixed. I'm not saying my idea should replace op's idea. I'm saying there should be many options to choose from for representation and that is a option I'd like to see!
