#and like 'disability is socially constructed'

[crippled-peeper]

i don't want to seem like i'm weighing in on a discussion that doesn't really pertain to me but. i have a visual impairment and even with perfect accomodations my life will never be exactly as easy as an abled person without my visual impairment. even if glasses/lenses were entirely free and easy to acquire an appointment to get and were essentially indestructible, there would still be plenty of things i couldn't do at risk of worsening my vision or developing another condition like migraines. one example is that i will never be able to drive, even though i have glasses that correct my vision, because i feel like i would be a risk on the road (especially if, for example, my glasses fell off. or got smeared. tiny things like that). and this is a MINOR condition that doesn't have a big impact on my life as is. so for people to suggest that disability is an entirely social construct is ridiculous, because even people with basically non-disabling issues would still have these issues in a perfect society.

Nah you’re totally correct and you should say it.

Furthermore, if people with visual impairments were all given free glasses, they won’t all become 100% sighted because MANY people’s visual problems are UNTREATABLE since they are caused by physical deformities of the eye itself that cannot be corrected even with surgery

plus of course, in reality, glasses might never be free or even affordable. I needed new glasses in February but can’t afford $300 for another eye exam so I’m wearing my old ones.

“disabled people won’t be disabled if we just change these parts of society in a specific way” is a super naïve and simplified way to talk about a problem that those people have no idea how to actually fix

[obstinatecondolement]

It feels like every day I read attempts to debunk the social model of disability that fundamentally misunderstand what the social model of disability is and who the people who developed that model were, including what the nature of their disabilities was, and I want to scream.

But I don't, because yelling at people on the internet is basically pointless. Instead I check to see that I'm not mutuals with whoever reblogged said misunderstanding and vague about it.

[antiterf]

Being passionate about trans and disability rights is obnoxious because I'll get someone going "trans people are mentally ill!" And I'll go through an entire explanation of how mental disorders are also social constructions and that while treatment can help, there's still plenty of instances where that diagnosis is used for power and removing autonomy. The fact that you're claiming trans people are mentally ill as a reason to not listen to them and remove medical autonomy literally shows that.

But instead I don't say anything or go "hey that's ableism and transphobia!" And call it a day because otherwise I'd be saying that on a daily basis.

[loregoddess]

saw the first volume of Cursed Princess Club in the store last Sunday as I was walking by the manga section, and the name was so unusual that I looked it up online when I got home, and found out it was on webtoons to read for free, and just finished it, and holy shit

literally one of the best stories I've ever read

[thedreadvampy]

last night in the pub after the anti terf protests I was talking to this guy whose PhD was in I think linguistic constructions around gender? the phenomenology of gender? idk I was quite drunk and it was very loud. anyway we were talking about defining gender identity and he was increasingly enthusiastically going STOP. SHUT UP. I HEARD PEOPLE SAYING THE EXACT SAME STUFF AT A GENDER CONFERENCE LAST WEEK. YOU'RE ON THE CUTTING EDGE OF CONTEMPORARY FEMINIST THOUGHT WHY ARE YOU NOT DOING A PHD????

and I was like first of all ayyyyy ✌️😘 second of all pal you expect me to like. Justify my thoughts academically? I've met doctoral candidates you bitches are all miserable. and third literally all I was actually saying was stuff like 'there are different definitions of womanhood that are useful in different contexts' and 'there are different meanings to gender in a social and in an individual context' and 'in a lot of liberationist contexts "person who experiences misogyny" is the most useful definition, but aside from finetuning what that actually means and how it relates to people who are subject to misogyny but don't consider themselves women etc, where does that leave us in imagining a post-oppressive womanhood if we don't fill in subscribe to a gender abolitionist standpoint, which I don't, because I like being a woman and find joy in it' and like. all of those are not Deeply Considered Academic Theories as much as they're Having Thought About My Experiences In The World

so I mean fair play bc I do think it's a good sign if your academic theory is something that a layman can come to on their own terms. imo the job of academics is not to invent theory but to codify it and make it explicit and specific. so like if your theory is reflected in where people outside academic philosophy end up that's probably a positive. same as Marx right, like Marx didn't invent the idea of capitalist alienation or collective action but he did codify it and make it easier to build off.

Like I appreciate this. I appreciate when we can recognise that a theory that people NEVER come to outside academia is probably. not a very useful theory.

[mantisgodsdomain]

Also have realized that we may have worded things oddly to exaggerate the amount of the Wasp Kingdom that is actually in active conflict but in our defence the power structures we currently have there have it so that whenever there aren't things to fight something like 40-80% of the Wasp Kingdom military gets re-allocated to Basically Whatever The Wasp Kingdom Needs At That Moment since they're, like, the Designated Supply Of Able-Bodied Wasps That The Queen Uses To Do Shit.

Marble is also banned from the non-combat parts of that setup, btw. Their particular tendency towards volatile-yet-effective is not something that ANYONE wants designing things that will be used in day-to-day civilian things just Around The Wasp Kingdom because generally you don't want your heavy-use architecture to Fucking Explode if you don't read and religiously adhere to the 120-page manual.

[antiradqueer]

transabled mfs when they actually becoming disabled and it’s actually debilitating instead of making them quirky

[mordcore]

i'm realizing that a body size i used to consider fat has now became "normal" or .. "average", "in the middle"? weird that we don't have a word for that. the thing is it's still probably fat but i guess i've just gotten used to it and normalized it for my brain, which is really nice, and definitely helped along by my project to draw my favorite oc as less thin because i realized i had no fat ocs. idk it's like a flip switched in my brain which is a great experience! and suddenly i'm realizing that where thin ends and fat starts is like. uhm i don't know where that would be and no one can agree on it but my brain apprently puts that on the point where someone is "too fat". the fatphobia is still there of course and it's gonna take a lot of time, maybe a lifetime, to dismantle but hey i've broadened what bodies i see as acceptable like on an emotional level, yippiie! the rest will follow from here i'm sure.

[that-neurodivergent-gay]

That chronically ill moment when wearing a corset would help with two chronic illnesses because abdominal binding helps, but you also have lung issues and a corset makes you unable to breathe.

[vettelsbees]

sugar, spice, and all things nice

max verstappen x baker!reader

fic type: social media au

summary: max is dating a chef/baker and she basically finds out that people hate max and is genuinely shocked

note: i've decided i'm going to learn how to do smau's!! it has been a learning process so far, but hopefully, I start getting better!! this is my first one so if something is weird i am sorry! any constructive feedback is welcome

---

tagged: maxverstappen1

@//yourusername: what i've been up to this week: breakfast foods!!

-@//bakingbyy/n: looks delicious!!

-@//lastlaplando: best wag

-@//maxverstappen1: ❤️❤️❤️

---@//littlelionmax: standard max response

-@//cookingisdelicious: I would kill for this cinnamon roll recipe

@//yourusername posted on their story!

caption: max is a little sleepy after our flight

caption: operation bribe red bull racing to love me is a go!!

@//yourusername posted on their story!

caption: someone is happy to head home!

tagged: @//maxverstappen1

tagged: @//maxverstappen1

@//yourusername: weekend recap with my champ. love you, max!

-@//breadbyy/n: where's our baking mother

-@//championoftheworld: win 80 for max...again

---@//lolalovesf1: he's making the sport boring

-@//roscoandalbonpetsstan: tell him to let someone else win

---@//yourusername: I think he's happy where he is!

-@//berriesandcream: im so sick of his stupid anthem

-@//georgieferrari: i would rather any other team win even freaking haas

@//yourusername posted on their story!

caption: enjoying our week off!!

tagged: @//maxverstappen1

@//yourusername: date nights with max. endlessly happy

-@//purplebulls: he seems like he cant cook

-@//mercedesfan8: happy until he does mad max on your ass

-@//maxverstappen1: ❤️❤️❤️

---@//youngcharles: let someone else win, dick

-@//estelleandf1: he's so smiley around y/n!!

---@//loganraaaamerica: i'd smile if he wasn't winning all the time

---@//theredcar: maybe he'll burn himself and be out for the next gp

@//yourusername: this is your villain. grow up.

comments have been disabled.

[qweerhet]

really gets my goat when people weaponize gender politics against disabled people. every time someone blames a disabled man (or person read as a man) for lashing out violently against their female caretaker and refers to it as "male violence" i lose 200 years off my life.

we live in a society where "caretaker" is a role that gives you absolute power over the disabled person in your care; quite frankly i think it's actively malicious to try to apply the concept of gendered violence in a way that posits the disabled person as the agent of violence and oppression in that situation. someone who has 100% control over you is, factually, in a position of absolute power over you; lashing out violently against people in absolute power over you is an inevitability.

i don't think there's a rhetorical way for me to get through to these people; they operate on the idea that maintaining the disabled as a powerless underclass is righteous and necessary, and that their powerlessness is inherent to their existence, not a socially constructed hierarchy. that's why they believe this is a robust feminist analysis of the power dynamics here--in this lens, the patriarchy is a socially constructed hierarchy that must be abolished (correct, tbc), but the caretaker-disabled relationship is just and inherent to the existence of disabled people, and thus cannot be a relevant axis of oppression.

but like. damn. really sucks to see feminism weaponized in such a directly dangerous, violent manner.

[daydreamerdrew]

The Hulk’s ability to focus isn’t something I’ve ever really thought about in detail before, and I think that’s because so far in my Hulk readings he hasn’t really been written as doing so very often, but recently I’ve read two issues that highlighted it for me.

In this bit from The Incredible Hulk (1968) #199 the Hulk is bothered by how he’s always on the run but never has any idea as to where he’s going and so decides to simply stop in place and figure things out before moving on.

He ends up sitting on top of this movie theater quietly for 6 hours and only moves because he was interrupted by SHIELD attacking him. I think that speaks to how little knowledge the Hulk has as he really doesn’t understand the world or have a place in it so he’s really not going to be able to figure out a place go to, and to how thinking things through is something that takes time for him, but I think that this also speaks to how the Hulk is, despite his reputation as an unthinking monster, very much willing to put in the time to think things through when he’s given the space to.

And in The Defenders (1972) #35, when the Hulk is searching for a baby deer that he rescued from hunters, he’s described as “oblivious that all but his quest.”

Searching for this baby deer is something that’s very important to the Hulk and that he is emotionally invested in, and so he doesn’t even notice that people are fleeing in terror from him and that the police are headed towards him, because he’s so focused on finding this deer.

I think it’s worth noting that it’s not that this is necessarily a new element to his character but simply something that he rarely gets the opportunity to do. The Hulk often just isn’t able to focus because his life is so hectic. While never as extreme as the 6 hours from the first example, I have read the Hulk focusing before in periods of minutes when he’s alone in the wilderness and so has a peaceful environment and isn’t interrupted. Whereas in the the first example here the Hulk is interrupted by SHIELD and in the second by the police.

I’m thinking that a lot of the Hulk’s ‘dumb’ decisions could largely be attributed to how he has to make a lot of split-second decisions during his very hectic life and that if he was consistently given the time and space to think about things that he wouldn’t necessarily be so ‘dumb’.

[vexingwoman]

Trans people always have and always will exist and it doesn’t hurt anyone one bit! Incredible!

If you acknowledge that gender is a social construct, you must also acknowledge that your gender identities are entirely contingent on that social construct.

In other words, your gender identities are also socially constructed—they’re not innate characteristics the way being female, black, homosexual, or disabled are innate characteristics that exist independently of any social customs or theories.

So no, trans-identified people have not always existed and will not always exist. Trans-identified people have only existed and will only exist so long as the social construct of gender exists. This is like claiming Christians have always existed and will always exist, when in reality Christians have only existed and will only exist so long as the concept of Christianity exists.

Furthermore, if you acknowledge that gender is an oppressive social construct that ascribes feminine expectations to female people and masculine expectations to male people, if you acknowledge that gender is the reason female people were confined to the domestic sphere and denied their most fundamental rights, if you acknowledge that gender is a system created to reinforce female subjugation and male domination and not just a fun, quirky little way to express yourself, then it’s not hard to comprehend that any ideology which hinges on the continued existence of this sexist social construct is inherently regressive and harmful.

[hyperlexichypatia]

One of the most common criticisms of "housing first" initiatives (programs to provide housing for unhoused people unconditionally without gatekeeping) is that housing first "does not improve mental health."  Now, let's set aside for the moment that this criticism is irrelevant -- the purpose of housing is to provide shelter, not to "improve mental health" -- what definition of "mental health" could possibly make this true? As much as I try to critique and deconstruct the social construction of "mental health," how could it possibly be true that having a safe, assured place to live would not result in greater happiness, greater inner peace, less depression, less anxiety, less negative emotions, than living on the street?  What possible definition of "mental health" would not be improved by being housed rather than unhoused?

Answering this requires unpacking the wildly different, almost completely unrelated, definitions of "mental health," one applied to relatively privileged people, and one applied to oppressed people.

For relatively privileged people, the concept of "mental health" is centered on emotional well-being, introspection and self-awareness, and the mitigation or management of negative emotions like pain, depression, anxiety, and anger.

For oppressed people, the concept of "mental health" is centered on compliance, obedience, and productivity.

Like most privilege disparities, this isn't binary. For most people who are privileged in some ways and marginalized in other ways, "mental health support" will include some degree of the emotional support given to privileged people, and some degree of the compliance and productivity training given to oppressed people, with the proportions varying on where exactly each person falls on various privilege axes.  All children are oppressed by ageism, so all children's "mental health" has some elements promoting compliance, obedience, and productivity. But relatively privileged children may also receive some emotional support mixed in, while children of color, children in poverty, and children with existing neurodivergence labels will receive a much higher ratio of compliance training to emotional support.

One of the clearest illustrations of this disparity is the contrast between the "self-care" recommended to privileged people, and the "meaningful days" imposed on oppressed people.

Relatively privileged people are often told, by therapists, doctors, mental health culture, and self-help books, that they are working too hard and need to rest more. They're told that for the sake of their mental health, they need work-life balance, self-care, walks in the woods, baths with scented candles. Implicit in these recommendations is that the reason these people are working too hard is because of internal factors, like guilt or emotional drive, rather than external factors, like needing to pay the bills and not being able to afford a day off.

By contrast, unhoused people, institutionalized people, people labeled with "severe" or "serious" or "low-functioning" mental disabilities, are literally prescribed labor. Publicly funded "mental health initiatives" require the most marginalized members of society to work tedious jobs for little or no pay, under the premise that loading boxes at a warehouse will make their days "meaningful" and thus improve their "mental health." And unlike the self-care advice given to relatively privileged people, the forced-labor-for-your-own-good approach is not optional. People are either forced into it directly by guardians or institutions, or coerced into it as a precondition to access material needs like housing and food.

The form of "mental health" applied to relatively privileged people has some genuinely useful and beneficial elements. We could all stand to introspect and examine our own feelings more, manage our negative emotions without being overwhelmed by them, have self-confidence. We all need rest and self-care.

Still, privileged mental health culture, even at its best, is deeply flawed. At best, it tends to encourage a degree of self-centeredness and condescension. It's obsessed with classifying experiences as "trauma" or "toxic." It's one of the worst culprits in feeding the "long adolescence" phenomenon and generally perpetuating the idea that treating people as incompetent is doing them a kindness. Even the best therapists serving the most privileged clients have a strong tendency towards gaslighting and "correcting" people about their own feelings and desires.

But perhaps the worst consequence of privileged mental health culture is that it gives cover to the dehumanizing, abusive, compliance-oriented "mental health care" forced upon the most marginalized people. Privileged people are encouraged to universalize their experiences with sentiments like "We all deal with mental health" or assume that the mild, relatively benign "mental health care" they experienced are the norm, so what are those silly mad liberation people complaining about?

Tonight, I listened to a leader from an agency serving unhoused people talk about how "Everyone struggled with mental health during the pandemic"... and then later mention that their shelter categorically excludes people with paranoid schizophrenia diagnoses. So perhaps "everyone struggles with mental health," but only certain people are categorically excluded from services, from shelter, from autonomy, from basic human rights, because of how their brains happen to work.

As always, it seems like so much effort in the mad liberation/ neurodiversity/ antipsychiatry movement is spent holding the hands of relatively privileged people receiving relatively privileged "mental health care" and reassuring them that we're not trying to take it away from them. Fine, it's great that you like your antidepressants and anti-anxiety medication and your nice therapist who listens to you and your support group. Great. Go live your best life. But that has nothing to do with our fight against forced drugging, forced labor, forced institutionalization, forced poverty. It's not even close to the same "mental health."

[txttletale]

annoys me to see people shoot back at the most strawmanned version of the social model of disability imaginable. ‘depression is a product of capitalism’ doesn’t mean ‘under socialism nobody will be sad’, or even ‘under socialism nobody will experience long-term recurring anhedonic despair without obvious cause’ -- it means that ‘depression’ is a social category constructed in opposition to ‘normal people’ -- that just like any axis of social oppression ableism is premised around drawing a circle around what is Normal and then applying an othering taxonomy to everything outside that circle, and that overthrowing capitalism opens the door to dissolving that circle and meeting people and their problems as they are instead of creating + enforcing a dehumanizing social role for them

[chronicallycouchbound]

Intelligence Doesn't Equal Morality

Intellect is rooted in ableist systems and stupidity and intelligence are pointless social constructs that don't relate to morals or character.

I try to be a pretty good person, I fight for human rights, I regularly engage in mutual aid, and I care for my community. I try to do the right thing and support causes I care about and make positive changes in the world.

But I also am not very smart. I have several neurodevelopmental disorders, as well as cognitive disabilities. I can’t do simple, basic math, it’s hard for me to remember facts or algorithms, I rely entirely on spellcheck and speech-to-text to write, I failed many classes in high school and I barely passed with a low GPA, I had low pSAT scores and I never took the SATs. I moved around a lot all through school starting in third grade, and I missed a lot of basic fundamentals in learning (like how to do division and multiplication) so when I went to a different school they had already passed it and expected me to know. After my TBI, I could barely read AFTER I was cleared from my “concussion” symptoms because letters and words would flip around and I’d get headaches. Which still happens sometimes.

A lot of people see me as smart because I've learned a lot of academic language and can formulate thoughts into cohesive posts. But I lack a lot of necessary skills and rely on my caretakers to assist me. Things like budgeting and planning are extremely difficult for me. If I need to do simple addition or subtraction, even with a calculator, I quickly get confused and struggle. I forget basic information about myself all the time, let alone other subjects. I'm talking, has to check my ID for my birthday type confused. Doesn't know my name or address or what year it is confused. It happens daily, sometimes multiple times a day. Being able to type out posts like this often takes weeks and many adaptive tools to get there. Focusing is extremely difficult on many fronts, severe chronic pain, ADHD, dissociation, fatigue, migraines, and TBI, are just some of the contributing factors. I struggle daily with many things because of my lack of intellect.

I’m also privileged in the fact that I had some access to education as a homeless youth, that I had some supports in place to help me (towards the end of school), that I was somewhat able-bodied at the time and could walk or bike to and from school when the school system didn’t provide transportation. I was fortunate to have a chance to succeed, and I’m proud that I graduated high school because it was a difficult task for me, and others often aren’t offered that chance or get accommodations. I almost didn’t and I dropped out many times before graduation. I passed on sheer luck and what little privileges I had. 

That all being said, me being stupid (reclaiming it here) doesn't make me a bad person. I don't hurt people because I can't do math. I may mess up things or get confused but it doesn't make me want to harm others.

We often (wrongfully) equate morals with intellect. Being ‘stupid’, ‘dumb’, or an ‘idiot’ doesn’t automatically make someone a bad person. Plenty of evil, awful, and abusive people are extremely intelligent. 

I see this most notably with people advocating for IQ tests to be able to vote. Often from left-leaning people, in hopes it'll make the right (that they view as unintelligent), unable to vote. The reality is, it just hurts some of our most vulnerable members of the community while not actively doing anything to restrict some of the most dangerous members of our community-- those who know what they're doing to harm others and deliberately doing so. My voice matters, and I speak up against injustice and participate in dismantling oppressive systems. Taking away my right to vote won't make the right stop oppressing minorities (which also puts a lot of faith into the two-party voting system, which is a post for another day).

Additionally, legislative measures that discriminate against intellectually disabled people such as IQ tests for voting are also rooted in racism and classism. 

Yes, education can be a vital tool when it comes to addressing discrimination and creating safer communities. But the kind of education that is measured with an IQ test (or any test) isn't the same. Building compassion and caring for others can (and should) happen at any IQ level. We can all practice this, we can all participate.

It harms our communities and stagnates our progress when we equate intelligence with high morals.