#i know for some disabled people this is the standard experience

[milaek]

Hggghfghfgg more covid posting because hcjaklajf.

Just took a shower/bath in which I washed the dogs. I had pretty full energy when I began.

I am now completely exhausted. Like. In my day to day I struggle with chronic-fatigue-like symptoms but this is fuckin next level. I'm not just an eepy bitch I am like physically jello now.

Hwhaaaaat the fuckkkkkk.

[rheakira]

I've come to temporarily break my hiatus to bring up something deeply important. Because after a recent event, if I have to go another day without talking about it, I don't know what I'll do.

Fandoms have an enormous issue when it comes to bigotry and people feeling comfortable enough to be openly bigoted.

And I want to make it clear: everyone is capable of it. In fact, most people do it more often than they don't. But because this strange myth has been built up that if you aren't "blatantly saying slurs" or "killing others" it can't possibly be bigotry, we have done nothing but become dangerous behind closed doors.

If your friend has odd beef with a person of color in the fandom and holds them to standards they don't hold their white friends to, that is bigotry. If your friend feels some sort of way about the trans person in your friend group and tries to come up with reasons for why they specifically can't stay, that is also bigotry. If your group insists that a person with a personality disorder is making it up just for attention and uses that as a reason for why they can't be around them, that is bigotry as well.

I've never been upfront about it because... why do I, as a human being, need to be upfront about my identity when people randomly decide what I am? But I am in fact a person of color who is queer and disabled. Whenever I join a fandom group that is mostly white people, I am liked until this is discovered. And then I watch as people get brutal about things I do or say. Things that they don't do to other people in the group, and I also watch as they take my words and either twist them for convenience or ruin my reputation for it.

As a marginalized person, both in fandom and out, you are held to a unique standard that does not apply to other human beings around you. It makes doing what you love very difficult, because unfortunately as a marginalized person, people will always subconsciously side with the person trying to oppress or attack you. This has happened to me my entire life, from school to work spaces to even internet spaces claiming to be safe places.

People will say that they care about you and like you and even form a friendly bond with you, but the moment a person of privilege decides they do not like you very much, they can and will side with the other person even without proof of their issues with you. It's exhausting and ruins lives in places that should be fun and safe.

I am on my umpteenth experience with this exact cycle and I would be lying if I said it didn't make me feel like I couldn't live or breath in places I should be allowed to be involved in. It's a very real problem that refuses to end because no one has the courage to challenge it. I am speaking not only on my own experiences, but for the many other people of color or queers or disabled people who simply cannot join these so called "safe spaces" because of our identities conflicting with people who have been taught that we are lesser and not worth love or care.

If this is a problem you face, please know that I see you and I love you. It's hard to keep surviving in a world that wants to hurt you and leaves you abandoned and alone. I want you to know that the world is scary, but we all exist. You should be allowed to experience joy and fun without feeling like you're being suffocated and wanting to die.

You matter. The people around you that make you feel like you don't are nothing by comparison. You matter and I truly hope that we'll one day find each other and become the safe space that we deserve.

The marginalized people in your fandom are more important than your fictional characters and plotlines that you put above us. We're here and we're not leaving. Learn to live with us and protect us.

If we're truly your friends, you would care when your privileged "friends" want to remove us.

Additionally, please do not take this rant and make it only about white people who are part of these marginalized categories. This is a post about EVERYONE. Including the people of color around you. Do not remove us from this conversation. Care about ALL OF US if you support this at all. Thank you.

[flowercrowncrip]

Possibly an unpopular perspective, but sometimes I feel like parents of children with similar or higher support needs to myself who campaign for things like changing places toilets, affordable health and social care, better quality care homes, and better access and funding for education understand a great deal of my life better than people who are disabled but never give a thought about those with high support needs.

Someone who knows what it's like to plan their entire life around the just over 2000 registered changing places toilets in the U K (compared to over 43,000 towns, cities, and villages) so that their child can use the toilet with dignity understands that part of my life better than the disabled people who have never even thought about the lives of people who can't use standard accessible bathrooms.

People who go out in public with their wheelchair using child and see the looks they get, hear the ableist comments and experience how much of society wheelchair users are cut out of understand that part of my life better than the disabled people who told me being a visibly disabled full-time wheelchair user makes me "privileged" compared to other disabled people.

I know that there are problems with some nondisabled people who are close to a disabled person talking over disabled people's first-hand experience, but I also think that there are some disabled people who could do with actually listening to severely disabled people and our families rather than assuming that the experiences of people with lower support needs are universal

[feminist-furby-freak]

We need to talk about how men weaponize their marginalized identities to harass and manipulate women.

I recently was talking with a friend (for context she is biracial and black but often white passing) who was being harassed by the guy in the seat next to her on a long train ride. He was trying to get her number and get her to agree to go out with him and she kept refusing. Eventually he asked if it was because he was black and if she was being racist. He told her if he was a white man she would have no problem giving her his number. I’ve experienced pretty similar situations a few times. The first time this happened I was maybe 14 (for context I am white) and came home bawling that I had been racist against some man for turning down his advances. My mom was like, first of all you’re literally a child and second of all someone’s identity doesn’t entitle them to you. Ever. As progressive/left-leaning people who care deeply about issues of racism it can be hard to acknowledge the fact that SOME men of color or men of other marginalized identities knowingly use that fact against women. And to be clear this is not to diminish the history of racism and the ways white women have historically harmed (and still can) black men. But stuff like this needs to be talked about even though it is uncomfortable. Victims shouldn’t be expected to stay quiet because it might hurt marginalized men. Some activists condemned Alice Walker for publishing The Color Purple and writing about (black) male violence because they said it would hurt black men. Many of us know about the unrealistic standard of the “perfect victim” but what about the “perfect perpetrator.” You might have seen the recent case where a woman came forward after being assaulted by a black trans identified man and thousands of people were telling her she shouldn’t have called the police because he’s marginalized and at risk. As if her actual experience as a victim matters less than his potential for being victimized. Obviously other groups of men can do this as well (I know a woman who was coerced into sex by a disabled man who used that to manipulate her) but this is just the example I’ve experienced recently. My post about trans identified men weaponizing their transness to sleep with women has gotten a lot of attention and I just wanted to address other ways male entitlement plays out.

[bebsi-cola]

happy disability pride. did you know that some medical equipment is prohibited by airlines on either hold baggage or cabin baggage or both? it varies by airline so i can't give a definitive list for everyone but! going off who i'm with rn, it might be medical oxygen depending on the size or type. it might be any mobility aids with spillable batteries, mobility aids with lithium battery that exceed a certain wattage, certain medications, any medical devices with batteries that exceed the limit etc etc. there's a lot of things disabled people have to navigate that are unseen for abled people. even if your medical equipment meets standards your booking process is much longer, you may need to know and provide exact specifications and dimensions, manufacturer, and such. i'm not really interested in arguing about safety reasons as much as i am talking about disabled people and their experiences, or what experiences they can't have

[cripplecharacters]

Hi! I was actually wondering if you all could do a really in-depth post specifically on canes versus forearm crutches. I’ve noticed a couple of the recent asks pertain to it, and I think I myself still have one in the queue related to it, but in all of the posts y’all link us too in your answers to those asks, I have found the information is still very sparse and doesn’t directly compare the two in a lot of detail. I would really really love to see a specific dedicated post that breaks down the differences Between them directly, and goes into a lot more detail about what kind of person might prefer a cane and what kind of person might prefer forearm crutches. Differences in conditions, pain levels, fatigue levels, location of issue on their body, other symptoms, examples of disabilities that might more commonly default to one over the other, all that stuff. I’ve looked through basically all your posts on the subject I can find, and still feel like it’s really only scratching the surface, so if there’s a way y’all would be willing to do one big post on this topic specifically, I know at least I would really love it and I think others would as well! Most of the existing posts are a little too broad and surface level, and while I have found them super helpful as a starting point, I would love to see one that zooms in just on these two mobility aids rather than a broad overview of all types of mobility aids being compared like most of the existing resources y’all have. Seriously love what you all do and I would be extremely grateful for this!

Hi anon, just for you:

On Writing Characters Using Canes vs Crutches

[large text: On Writing Characters Using Canes vs Crutches]

This is a writing advice post that doesn't cover every single possibility because that's too impossible to try and do. It's simplified (!!!) to be coherent for writers who have little to no experience with these sorts of mobility aids, and I encourage anyone who wants to write a character using either of these to treat this post as a small part of a larger research process. This post will contain generalizations for the purpose of me wanting to actually finish it. This is writing advice, not medical information, nor something you should be applying to real life.

Please keep in mind that a lot of the disability examples will only be shown in a single category because otherwise this would be a comical block of text. So yeah, I know that a ton of conditions outside the "chronic pain" category also come with chronic pain, but I want this list to be actually easy to look through.

This will compare the cane (singular stick) to crutches (two sticks). Differences between a singular crutch and two canes will be at the end.

Canes

[large text: Canes]

The most primitive mobility aid that's out there. A wrist-height stick with a handle. You hold it in your hand (at a rather natural angle) and that's mostly it - it's meant to follow a standard (left leg forward, right arm forward) gait and be a support meant for generally milder mobility issues. A cane can take up to 25% of body weight, so like half of what a leg does.

As a TLDR, here's what they could be:

One leg unable to bear the entire weight (but not completely unable) - this could be a result of a problem anywhere from the bottom of the foot all the way to the hip.

Milder balance problems - largely neurological, so either a condition that affects the brain, the spinal cord, or the nerves in the leg. There are also some autoimmune, respiratory, and cardiovascular causes as well, plus a few more.

Back/trunk problems, most commonly pain.

To use a cane you need two legs, most people who use canes for leg reasons will have a “good leg” and a “bad leg”. If this is the case, you'd typically hold the cane on the good leg side, as that redistributes the weight - and pain - between the bad leg and the cane.

The good leg needs to be able to bear the whole weight comfortably, the bad leg needs to be able to bear, at the very least, half of the weight. If the disability affects legs to the point where either:

both have problems weight-bearing;

one can't bear weight at all (e.g., amputation, flaccid paralysis, pain too severe);

then two crutches (or other mobility aid, like a wheelchair) would be the move. The cane doesn't replace an entire leg and is meant to be a minor support.

Examples of what would cause someone to use a cane:

Monoplegia or hemiplegia that is spastic (rigid) in the leg. This could be a result of stroke, traumatic brain injury, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, nerve damage, Brown-Séquard syndrome, polio, encephalitis, transverse myelitis, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, alternating hemiplegia of childhood, hemiplegic migraines, or being a hemispherectomy survivor. And many more things.

Chronic pain; arthritis, hypermobility spectrum disorders, chronic patellar instability, h-EDS, neuropathy, peripheral artery disease, past injuries (e.g., broken foot that healed incorrectly), systemic lupus erythematosus, joint replacement, chronic bursitis, and a lot more.

Relatively minor fatigue - most fatigue disorders will be on a wide spectrum, and people's symptoms often vary a lot. But a cane could help with fibromyalgia, Charcot Marie Tooth disease, POTS, scoliosis, severe kyphosis/lordosis, COPD (and other respiratory conditions), or milder forms of CFS/ME. Someone undergoing chemotherapy (or taking some other fatigue-causing medication) could also use one.

Muscle conditions, which are an even bigger spectrum. Spinal muscular atrophy type 3 and 4, early Limb-Girdle muscular dystrophy, tibial MD, Becker MD, or early myotonic dystrophy type 2 can all be reasons to use a cane. Keep in mind that these have drastically different presentations from person to person, and it's not entirely unusual for two people with the same kind of muscular dystrophy to use very different mobility aids (e.g., a tilt-in-space powerchair vs ...no aid at all). These are just the ones where I'm aware of a person who 1) has it, 2) uses a cane, even if it's not the most common aid.

Prosthetic leg on one side; usually below knee (high level amputees will more often go for crutches, even if they use a prosthetic).

The second biggest reason why people use a cane is balance. For this the cane can be held in either hand; some people have a preference, generally for the non-dominant hand for convenience - although many people with balance problems will also have a coordination disorder that might make using their non-dominant hand too difficult. Some people will switch the side they hold it on.

For a lot of people with balance problems, a cane might be the aid they use at home, and use a rollator or a wheelchair outside.

A good cane for balance purposes is a quad cane - it has four legs at the bottom and offer more stability than the single point equivalent. However, the larger base might also mean that for some people it can be easier to hit it with their foot, which ranges from annoying to dangerous.

Examples of disabilities that affect balance;

Many of the things included in the first section - primarily those that directly affect the brain or nerves.

Conditions that cause vertigo - again, many of the same things as before because a lot of them tend to originate in the brain. So other than aforementioned meningitis or stroke and the like: Ramsay Hunt syndrome, migraines, basically any sort of brain damage, POTS, Meniere's disease, labyrinthitis.

Respiratory problems, like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, severe asthma, or lupus.

Coordination disorders - again, a lot of overlap with aforementioned disabilities, so I'll skip to things I haven't mentioned yet. Ataxia could be caused by a lot of things; some include the Chiari malformation, ataxia-telangiectasia, Friedrich's ataxia, Parkinson's, brain tumors, or Niemann-Pick disease. Dystonia is usually a primary condition rather than being caused by other things (although it can be!). Dyspraxia is also a coordination disorder generally milder than ataxia, and canes can be potentially helpful for it as well.

As mentioned before, some coordination disorders will affect the upper limbs as well, and it might be too difficult to use a cane. For disabilities like Huntington’s disease, or ataxia that significantly affects the hands, rollators and wheelchairs tend to be more helpful.

Anything that causes the person to fall. Fall risk is the primary reason people use canes.

A cane can also be used for back/trunk issues. One can lift off some weight of the body from above the Problem by putting the weight on the arm instead. I have really severe kyphosis as well as (partial) trunk muscle atrophy/coordination problems and quite literally can't straighten my back for more than a few minutes at most - my cane allows me to do that more easily and without needing to think about it as much.

Examples of some conditions that cause that include;

sciatica;

degenerative disk disease;

past spine injury;

scoliosis or severe kyphosis/lordosis.

In my experience, you need fairly good arm strength to use a cane comfortably. For people with more significant weakness in upper limbs, rollators tend to work better.

Grip strength is also important; there are canes designed to mitigate this (the platform cane/crutch comes to mind) but they're not the most common because often (not always!) when someone has this issue they already require a larger mobility aid.

Canes are often a "starting" mobility aid, i.e., a person starts using it at first but later transitions to using something else as their disability progresses (or they realize that it wasn't adequate in the first place, it mostly happens with slowly progressive conditions - when they decide to get a cane, it's often just too late). A cane can be useful at the very start of an onset of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, but it's basically worthless beyond that.

Similarly (kind of), a cane can be the "smaller" mobility aid for someone who uses multiple of them at the same time. Someone dealing with fatigue could use a cane at home, but need a rollator for going out, or a wheelchair for longer trips. Another person could use a cane when going out with a prosthetic leg on, but use a wheelchair or crutches at home when not wearing the prosthetic.

Crutches

[large text: Crutches]

These are more complex and provide more help. Crutches directly affect your gait depending on the exact disability, and take away both hands. They can potentially take up to 100% of body weight for parts of the walking cycle if you have good upper body strength and balance, and 50% otherwise (so, one good or two half-good legs still required).

Crutches are used for a lot of things (realistically too many to cover here) so I'll just go with the main categories that encompass most of them.

A) Both legs can't fully bear weight;

The same things as in the cane section, but present on both sides rather than one.

Hypotonia; can be caused by thousands of things. Some include Down syndrome, Tay-Sachs syndrome, achondroplasia, being born prematurely, brain damage, and congenital hypothyroidism.

Paraplegia that's low-level and/or incomplete, or quadriplegia that's incomplete. Quadriplegia is a huge spectrum as well, and it will depend on the amount of strength and flexibility that the individual person has in their arms and hands.

Bilateral amputation with prosthetics. (Someone who can bear weight no problem but has a milder balance problem could use a cane instead.)

B) One leg can't bear any or a lot of weight;

The same things as in the cane section, they're basically all on a spectrum, so some people choose a cane and others choose crutches.

Unilateral amputation, or congenital limb difference.

Limb length discrepancy where it doesn't touch the ground or barely does so.

C) Significant balance issues;

Same things as for canes, but either more severe or just someone's personal preference.

D) Back/trunk pain;

Same as C).

Additional note based on things I have seen: you can't use crutches if you have no legs and no prosthetics. You can't walk literally just on crutches. You need at least a single leg or prosthetic.

(Yeah I'm aware that there's probably a guy somewhere who does tricks where he does exactly that for a short video. That's Crutches Georg and he should not be counted because 99.9% of crutches users won't be doing that ever.)

Crutches will provide much more stability and relieve more pressure than a cane, but there is a wide range of the amount of support depending on how they are utilized.

What the disability is can actually present itself in the person's gait - there are a few main ones that are associated with crutches;

Four-point. The two legs and two crutches work as four different points of support, and three of them are in contact with the ground at any time. A lot (not all!) of people who use it will use crutches full-time and/or not be able to stand without them. The most stable and the slowest out of all of these.

Three-point. Probably the one most people have in mind when thinking crutches? The crutches both move at the same time, along with the bad leg, then the good leg follows. This is the "broken leg in a cast" way of walking.

Two-point. The closest to how non-crutch users generally walk. It's like having a cane on each side; left crutch forward, right leg forward. Fairly fast.

Step-to. The crutches work as one point of contact, and the legs as the other - both of each will move forward at the same time. In the step-to, a person puts their feet at the crutches' height. Fairly fast as well.

and step-through. I'd say the most difficult, least stable, providing the least amount of support. The same as in step-to, both crutches go forward before both legs, however here the legs get swung through them while the person is only holding up on crutches. This is the fastest that it gets, and can definitely be faster than an abled person walking. You can run quickly like this.

If you have issues visualizing them, there are a lot of great demonstrations on YouTube that you can look up for clarification.

There are a lot of subtle differences in which one people end up using, but as a rule of thumb, the more balance they lack, the more points of support they need. To provide some examples;

a person with quadriplegic cerebral palsy might lack balance and coordination, so they might use a four-point gait.

A person with one-sided tarsal tunnel syndrome can walk with a three-point gait, as it can be used to mitigate weight-bearing fully or partially - if the pain gets worse, they can just... not touch the ground with that leg.

A person with incomplete thoracic spinal cord injury could also work with a three point gait, though they would put both legs on the ground. If someone has good strength in the arms and trunk, they can get both crutches in the front along with one leg, then try to get the second one to go forward as well. This is how a lot of crutch users with a disability affecting two legs, but with decent balance and upper body strength, walk.

A person who had a traumatic brain injury and now experiences balance problems but not as much leg issues could opt for a two-point gait. It does help with weight redistribution, but primarily provides a lot of balance.

Both step-to and step-through are primarily used by single-leg problem havers (like unilateral amputees) in my experience, but I've seen people with diplegia or incomplete low-level spastic paraplegia use it too. You need very good balance and good upper body strength. I've seen dudes do backflips and ride skateboards on crutches like this. You can run as well and be way faster than you think.

The same as canes, crutches require arm strength. The more you're looking to take away from the legs, the more will go to the shoulders. If someone doesn't have the needed arm strength, a rollator will be more helpful. Walkers not so much as they still require some strength to turn.

More Direct Comparisons

[large text: More Direct Comparisons]

The differences between pain and fatigue levels might be somewhat evident from comparing the sections above - to generalize the subject as much as possible: the bigger the pain or the fatigue, the higher possibility of using crutches over a cane is. They provide more relief for both, as well as providing more balance.

Now, there's always exceptions. Someone might not be able to use two sticks, because of a disability affecting one of the arms - hemiplegia is a common example. In this case, the person could prefer to use a single crutch rather than two. They could opt for platform crutches, which don't require as secure of a grip. They might need a rollator instead. They might have a powerchair that they operate with their good arm.

Another thing is that some people will use crutches even if a cane would work just as well. Some people like the grip more, or find them easier to use. They could also like that crutches are seen as more medical than a cane, which could be seen as a fashion accessory. Maybe they can be faster on crutches than with a cane (e.g., if their disability is limited to a single leg, getting it out of the walk cycle might be more convenient) and that matters to them.

And to go with this, some people just don't like crutches! I personally don't like the forearm cuff because I tend to swing my wrist around with my cane rather than hold it perfectly straight, so the cuff seems annoying. For someone else that could be more than a preference, e.g. if they have a limb difference that affects the length of their forearms to be much shorter - a person like this could prefer two canes.

As to what mobility aids are better for which disabilities, it's highly individualized, but to heavily generalize again: canes tend to be more helpful for relatively milder disabilities, and crutches for relatively more significant ones based on the amount of support they provide. But that's an oversimplification so simple that it's not really useful.

Someone with neuropathy in parts of their foot might find a cane completely sufficient, but it wouldn't be as useful for someone with nerve damage that caused flaccid paralysis from the hip down; they would probably prefer crutches. But then again, someone with mild vertigo could use crutches because they prefer them (even if a cane would work just fine) while someone else might have incomplete C6 quadriplegia and use a cane with leg braces over crutches because they enjoy having a free hand.

For more similarities between the two; overuse injuries can happen to both cane and crutch users, generally in the shoulder(s). They're not very common unless you're putting more weight on them than you're supposed to. They're very annoying because it drastically tanks your mobility until they get better (unless you can walk without them just as much that is), but they're treatable with physical therapy.

Now for the two canes and a singular crutch. Let's start with the fact that the latter is infinitely more popular than the former. It's basically the same as a single cane but more supportive; it's good for people who need more balance than a cane provides but can't use both hands. Two canes is very rare and I can't tell you what the actual pattern of choosing them over other options is outside personal preference because I have no idea.

The general conclusion of the post is that crutches and canes really aren't that different, and are more of a spectrum of usable sticks by the amount of support they provide to the user. That's why often you'll see canes and crutches listed as the same thing when it comes to "management of XYZ disability" type resources - for a lot of them they're rather similar in practice, especially when compared to rollators, walkers, scooters, or wheelchairs.

I hope this was more in depth and therefore more helpful, if this still leaves you with some unanswered question feel free to reach out again.

mod Sasza

[covid-safer-hotties]

"You Have to Live Your Life:" Responses to Common COVID Minimizing Phrases - Published Aug 6, 2024

If you're still COVIDing, you've likely heard phrases, like "it's mild now," or "you have to live your life," repeated over and over. You might be wondering, "what do I even say here? How do I respond to this?" I've listed some of the most common minimizing phrases and some potential responses to them. Feel free to adapt these and make them your own. I've included a variety of responses with different tones, depending on how much you want to be #saltingthevibes.

I want to recognize you might not always have the time or emotional energy to get into these discussions. Some people unfortunately aren't engaging in good faith, so it's important to be able to discern for yourself when you want to have these conversations. You don't always have to educate people, it can be exhausting! For those times when you want to respond but are at a loss for words in the moment, here are some ideas to get you started.

Starting off with one of my (least) favorites:

"You have to live your life!"

"I am living my life. Wearing a mask doesn't stop me from living my life, it makes it possible for me to do the things I love more safely."

"I'd love to be able to get out and do more things, but unfortunately that's not safe for me because so few people are masking."

"I would be a lot harder to live my life if COVID disabled me."

"Living my life means protecting my health, in the short and long term."

"I've adapted how I live my life based on the research about all of the long term health effects of a COVID infection."

"How long are you going to keep doing this for?"

"I'll probably always wear a mask in public spaces, when you know better you do better!"

"There's no expiration date on keeping myself safe and protecting my health."

"When we've widely implemented clean air standards and there's a sterilizing vaccine for COVID, then I might update my current precautions."

"I really wish I didn't have to do this either! But given what I know about COVID and Long COVID, this is the best choice for me."

"How long are you going to keep doing this for? It seems like you're sick all the time now, it sounds really unpleasant."

"We have to live with COVID."

"I'm glad you agree the government has done a terrible job trying to mitigate the spread!"

"To me, living with COVID means doing what we can to protect ourselves, not just giving up entirely."

"We also have to live with car accidents, that's why I wear my seatbelt to protect myself."

"What if we didn't have to? What if we collectively did more to clean the air and create safer living conditions for all of us?"

"Unfortunately you're right, that's why I'll continue to mask to keep myself and my community safer."

"It's mild now/it's just a cold/flu."

"Many illnesses seem like 'just a cold/flu' when you're first infected, but can still have long term health consequences, like mono or HIV."

"You can develop Long COVID even if your initial symptoms are mild or asymptomatic."

"I'm not as worried about the initial symptoms of the acute infection, I'm more concerned about the significant risk of Long COVID."

"You're lucky your symptoms weren't very severe initially. For me, COVID was a lot worse than a cold."

"I don't want to get sick with a cold either."

"I got it X times and I'm fine!"

"I'm sorry to hear you've had so many infections. COVID can cause silent damage throughout our bodies, it might be a good idea to go in for a check up with your doctor."

"I'm glad you're feeling fine so far, but my experience has been different."

"Your risk of Long COVID increases with each infection, so I'm doing what I can to avoid getting it."

"I hear that in your experience, a COVID infection hasn't been a big deal. Unfortunately not everyone is so lucky and many are dealing with significant Long COVID symptoms."

"You're young and healthy, you'll be fine/ only the vulnerable need to worry."

"I used to think the same thing! It turns out I have some underlying risk factors that mean an infection could be very harmful to me."

"Everyone is at risk of Long COVID, and your risk increases with each infection."

"You cannot know someone's health status by looking at them. A lot of young people are high risk as well."

"I don't appreciate you making assumptions about my health status."

"Did you know more than 75% of Americans have at least one risk factor? More than 40% have two or more, and almost 20% have three or more! Being high risk is more common than you think."

"There are actually a lot of factors that can make someone high risk, like a history of smoking, depression, asthma, ADHD, and more!"

"Kids don't get COVID/it's mild for kids."

"Unfortunately many studies show that rates of Long COVID in kids is similar to the rates in adults."

"COVID is the 8th leading cause of death in children in the US."

"Kids can be high risk for COVID, like if they have asthma, ADHD, autism, diabetes, or other common health issues."

"Kids don't deserve to be repeatedly infected with an illness that we know causes long term damage."

"I'd encourage you to read some of the stories about kids with Long COVID, it's heartbreaking for them and their families."

"Long COVID is rare."

"I'm curious where you learned that, because that doesn't fit into my understanding of Long COVID."

"Studies show rates around 20% of adults infected will go on to develop Long COVID, and many studies show higher rates. Your risk increases with each infection."

"Even if you're right, I'm not willing to risk it."

"Have you noticed an increase in weird symptoms or health issues in your circle? Fatigue, headaches, GI issues, stroke, heart attack, blood clots and a ton of other issues can all be caused by a COVID infection."

"It's more common than you might think, there are over 200+ possible symptoms and it can look different in everyone."

"My doctor doesn't wear a mask."

"Yikes! How unfortunate your doctor isn't up to date on the science and isn't doing more to protect their patients."

"It's too bad how many doctors don't stay up to date with important health information."

"Doctors also used to smoke cigarettes in healthcare facilities and recommend them to patients. Just goes to show you doctors aren't always right."

"The medical field scorned the doctor who recommended they start washing their hands... I'm seeing a lot of parallels here."

"Unfortunately it can take many years for practices like these to become more mainstream."

[howdoyouwhiskit]

*deep breath* so I’ve been meaning to make a big post about House re:mobility aids and chronic pain treatment for a LONG time so here we go this is gonna be a long ride that probably won’t make a lot of sense in regards to a linear narrative so buckle up motherfuckers

Disclaimer: I am disabled, have chronic pain, and am an ambulatory mobility aid user. I have experience using a cane, forearm crutches, a rollator, and a walker. I understand everyone’s experiences are different. I am writing this from my personal experience with mobility aids which may influence some interpretations of things

Let’s start with the obvious one, House uses his cane wrong. They recognize this in canon. It isn’t simply a case of “oh the show writers were lazy and it’s never mentioned.” What I haven’t seen people discuss is that using a cane the way House does (in my experience anyways) fucking hurts. It isn’t comfortable at all. It feels awkward and clunky and at least personally within a few minutes of using a cane in that fashion my *entire body* hurts. Plus, it doesn’t even really help take the pressure off of my leg pain.

Given the all of him there’s two conclusions that I’d like to make about this (and remember this isn’t canon, just simply my interpretation as a disabled person):

It’s very obvious that House has Feelings about mobility aids. Society can often make people think that using mobility aids is a weakness. Admitting something is wrong. House very clearly doesn’t like to do either of those things. I personally have incredibly complicated feelings about mobility aids that I can’t even begin to put into words. I see myself in House in this regard.

I can’t help but think that him using his cane incorrectly is some fucked up form of self punishment. It’s been brought up in canon that House has a tendency to self harm in various ways. I don’t think that people realizing that him using a cane incorrectly could be related. For those who are unfamiliar, using any mobility aid (even a cane) incorrectly can cause damage. I do not claim to be a doctor but I imagine that House would be dealing with back and shoulder issues at minimum from using his cane the way he does.

The next thought I have is something I think about a lot. It’s clear House’s pain fluctuates, as it does for a lot of chronic pain patients. What I don’t see a lot of people talking about is realistically he could fluctuate mobility aids with the fluctuations of his pain. Yes, I understand there are limitations within his career as a doctor, but this is House MD were talking about there isn’t exactly always exact medical realism is there? I just can’t help but wonder, what would House’s life look like, if he let himself use something other than a cane?

I know there’s an episode where House does use a wheelchair for access to an accessible parking space, and I really really wish they expanded upon this more in canon. Personally, I think House needing to be (but not necessarily acting on it) a part time ambulatory wheelchair user makes sense.

I’ve read some fic/headcanons about House needing a wheelchair (Berber it be due to an advancement in disability or as an acceptance of his current disability) yet everyone talks about him using a shitty hospital grade chair. He’s a doctor who probably has great insurance plus a lofty department head paycheck. If House were in a position to have a wheelchair, he could very very easily access a top of the line custom made chair.

I understand the representation of the standard hospital chair often comes from a place of ignorance about custom wheelchairs, I really do. I just think that the concept of using a hospital chair permanently can cloud the judgement of if it’s truly a “bad thing” or not. Hospital wheelchairs are fucking uncomfortable and not easy to use. A custom chair, when built right, is none of these things.

Just, I’d love more House fanwork that embraces the idea of mobility aids. No, I don’t mean make House randomly decide “oh I’m gonna accept help now” and make him OOC. No, I mean let’s actually dive into House’s feelings about mobility aids, create some fanworks where maybe he works through some of his internalized ableism and self hatred and lets himself be accommodated. I hate seeing fic after fic that makes it seem like it’s some tragedy that House needs crutches or a walker or wheelchair. I want it to be normalized. Disability can be progressive and that’s just life. Yes, it’s upsetting. Yes, it can be sad to those involved. No, it doesn’t mean the end of the world.

Now I think it’s time to talk in regards to the treatment of his chronic pain, outside of the way he accommodates his mobility. I think that, while this is probably related to the writers wanting to stick to the “addicted to Vicodin” plot line, House’s pain management in the series, sucks, to put it lightly. I’ve been to multiple pain management programs (both at formal PM clinics and informal PM done by other specialists) and any doctor worth their salt would have had him on some sort of nerve pain medication and probably some form of muscle relaxer from the very beginning. While, yes, one could argue that House is on these medications and it’s just not mentioned, I really really don’t think that’s the case. You could also argue that he may have been offered these things, and simply refused them. This could very well be the case. However, that doesn’t erase the fact that these things could be helpful.

When House is off Vicodin, they have him substantiating off of exclusively ibuprofen. I’ve had chronic pain bad enough to need opioids treated with high doses of ibuprofen and in my personal experience, it doesn’t do shit. It just upsets your stomach and risks kidney issues and doesn’t actually help with the pain. The fact that just because he deals with addiction he doesn’t get proper pain management is BONKERS to me.

I understand that they were, within the shows canon, attempting to claim that at least some of the pain was psychological. Just because someone’s pain is psychological doesn’t mean you do not treat it. There are plenty of ways to treat psychological pain. Again, one could argue that House simply refused. Again, I’d say that you might be right.

You notice that I say that House very realistically could’ve refused various treatments that could make his life better. Just like how it is with his cane, I believe this is an effort at self punishment. If these efforts at self punishment are conscious or not is genuinely up to you. I personally view it as unconscious, but again, as I said in the beginning, I’m interpreting this the way I see things.

Anyways, just needed to get my thoughts out there, as a crippled person who’s been obsessed with House since before they realized that their chronic pain wasn’t normal. Since before they realized that the word disabled was something that could be applied to them.

Feel free to reply to this with thoughts or questions and y'all are more than welcome to DM me to pick my brain about this!

[ewingstan]

Discussion of disabilities in media ahead, this isn’t a thesis so much as some loose musings. Curious what people who’ve spent more time with these topics think. I’m on mobile so forgive the formatting change:

“I don’t want to be a pig,” Laurie whispered.

“A pig? What are you even talking about?” Miltona asked.

“I know we’re not supposed to use terms or labels for them, but… the boy in cubicle three and the girl in cubicle six. When we’re in the dormitories we talk and there’s obviously a set of procedures and protocols where a worker gets… demoted.”

….The Overseer collected a tissue from a stack of tissues on Donna’s undecorated desk. She wiped a dribble of moisture from the corner of Donna’s mouth. There was no reaction, no change in Donna. The older woman breathed at a set rate, blinked at a set rate, and even seemingly filled the catheter bag attached to her chair at a set rate.

So Teachers thing is gradually turning people from “guys indebted to me” to “literal non-autonomous tools.” The most obvious metaphor is turning men into machines, the metaphor Laurie uses is turning them into animals. The external manifestation is them being forced to work in a prison and the internal manifestation is the dignity-robbing lack of control over bodily functions. All of this is pretty effective at making Teacher out to be horrid. I do wonder if we get something unintentional from putting them all together.

An inglorious end tied to becoming unable to take care of bodily functions is a reoccurring trope for wildbow. Khepri covered in snot and tears she won’t wipe away, Lillian dooming the Fishmonger by giving him incontinence. Donna Sledge using a catheter and not having enough of herself left to wipe the drool from her mouth.

I’m kind of curious how people who have disabilities which make it hard to live independently feel about these. Is it frustrating to see a character’s use of a catheter be a narrative signal of their lack of personhood? If you’ve had the experience of losing a capacity, are books which portray the loss of such capacities as uniquely horrible something you’re frustrated by, or relate to? Do you feel seen by the way characters stop treating Donna like a person, feel like the struggles you face regarding how others treat you are on the page? Or are you frustrated that your condition is being compared to getting turned into a pig?

This isn’t really a complaint that wb is being uniquely ableist. I’m not even sure how you tell stories with “loss of some bodily/mental ability as horror” as a theme without running into similar concerns. I don’t necessarily think such concerns mean that we shouldn’t write those stories; I’m not going to come out against authors treating Alzheimer’s as tragic. And I do think this is effective writing, that it successfully makes Teacher out to be a horrible villain by robbing his victims of their dignity. It just reminds me that the standard of dignity being invoked is one that leaves a lot of people out. Not sure how I should weigh that.

[decolonize-the-everything]

I saw you post with quote from whipping girl in a post, and I want to share some perspective on what I think of transandrophobia as a transmasc who is not too fond of the term.

When it comes to discussions of oppression, I've never felt put down or discarded due to the word "transmisogyny". In fact I've just felt this word has just made sense. Not only is it the next step in intersectionality for transfems, it also encompasses experiences that are unique to transfeminity that all transfems experience.

Transandrophobia/transmisandry is not so cut and clean.

We can assume that, as a transmasc, we have experiences that transfems don't have and that much is true. After all, many transfems will not experience the want to go on testosterone, but in the end I can't find much else that is unique to transmasculinity. Hell, not even all transmascs want that.

Transfems, many before transitioning, have been demeaned for being feminine and have maybe even felt the need to fight for every last shred of masculinity they could in order to feel safe or in the in group. I have felt much the same with my transition, so I don't believe this is a unique experience that transmascs face alone. Rather, it is what you are forced into to feel safe.

I have been with partners who do no respect my gender identity or sought me out specifically because I was trans (chaser) and this is also not unique to transmasculinity.

I have been assumed to be a woman and denied my masculinity just for my visible boobs that I cannot bind due to asthma. And while most transfems can probably not really relate to that specifically, I know the term "brick" was not made by cis people. And it just shows that conventional cissexist standards leak into trans ideals of passing for all groups of trans people.

All this to say, I don't think androphobia is what I've experienced at all. I've experienced crossections of oppression like ableism and transphobia, but when I've experienced other forms of oppression or abuse (Cat calling, sexual abuse, physical and verbal abuse) it was with the idea that I was a woman stepping out of line, not because they viewed me as a man. In fact when I've been misogynistically harassed, they had no clue I was a man at all. Just another woman to humiliate.

I've been called faggot, been viewed as a feminine man when I do pass, and it still feels much more as an extension of misogyny than what people describe to be androphobia. I feel more like I'm being equated to a woman in order to feel dehumanized and emasculated. Which I don't feel can be confidently described as "androphobia" even with the trans suffix.

It just also completely rubs me the wrong way when I see some transmascs group it together with "fighting for men's rights," because these ideologies have been used by misogynistic killers and fascists. (Source: https://everytownresearch.org/report/misogyny-extremism-and-gun-violence/#misogyny-extremism-and-online-radicalization)

I get wanting to describe unique experiences, but I truly do think it should be gone about a different way than trying to make it neat and congruent to the word transmisogyny. There are cross sections that need to be analyzed that I feel do not get encompassed in the transandrophobia model

For example, I'm Jewish, and I can say this to a room full of progressive thinkers and trans people and still get treated like the odd one out. It's to the point I don't even mention it anymore because it's such a hassle to deal with the questions and needless tokenization.

I'm disabled, and because of this I'm infantilized, not considered, and thought of as an annoyance even within trans spaces.

I'm fat, and because of this I cannot fit most standards that transmascs like to fit into. Even when I get top surgery, I'll need to leave some breast tissue so I still look natural because most fat men are not completely flat chested. My hips are high so even with fat redistribution I will not have the build that a lot transmascs get on T, and this will mean I experience passing much differently than a lot of my peers.

I feel these intersections are much better described with transphobia, because I do not feel hated and oppressed for being a man specifically. I feel hated and oppressed because I cannot be a man in the way people want me to be or because I can't be a woman in the way they feel I should be.

Tysm for this perspective. And before I say anything I wanna say that I'm not trying explain your oppression to you or tell you that your understanding of your own experiences is wrong.

I've been reading a lot and like I said Im reworking my own understanding of my gender based oppression it because as two spirit/nonbinary I'm never going to reach the ideal of woman, man, or even androgynous that has been set by white supremacy/eurocentrism.

I haven't called myself trans femme/masc for the same reason. The idea those things are based on weren't built for me and trying to make them fit feels as restrictive as it sounds.

My unique intersection of oppression has forced me to analyze gender not just as a tool used by sexists and white supremacists, but as a tool for self determination.

I'm looking at this not just as a non-femme trying to understand my gender, but also as a two-spirit trying to untangle the way colonialism has affected the gender is understood as a concept and attempting to decolonize it.

I'm gonna break it down how I see it under the cut.

•

And I will say that my actions in that regard will make some people Very Deeply fucking upset because your gender is a core aspect of a Lot of peoples identity and to be told it's inherently colonial might not make everyone super happy.

Like I said this post will make some people upset/defensive. I just ask you sit with that instead of coming to me about it right away, because all I'm doing is decentering colonial definitions & standards for gender to describe my experiences and understanding.

Take what resonates and leave what doesn't.

It's a long lost and there's no read more. Gender is complex, did y'all know that?

Anyway,

Colonial standards of gender often include:

Subscribing & adhereing to the gender binary

Subscribing & adhereing to gender roles

Adhereing to western/eurocentric beauty standards

Which doesn't seem like a lot when it's just 3 points like that, but the way those ideas breakdown into subcategories and build on each other is complex.

So before you can adhere to a gender binary, you need to believe in one right? So let's break that down. Cuz really my issue starts at the very beginning.

The colonial binary is man/woman/other with man & woman being understood as two distinct and opposite genders

Behaviors & gender are also identified and split into two main binary categories: masculine & feminine and they are associated with men and women respectively

Man & Woman are are the basis and frame of reference for understanding gender as a whole

Other being used as a catch-all for anything that isn't defined by Man and/or Woman ex: non-binary, androgynous, neo-genders etc.

The level of belief to which you subscribe to the binary helps others determine your validity & value within the binary

Additionally, deviating from this binary or disagreeing with this binary increases your proximity to Other and reduces your proximity to Man and Woman

Conforming to the binary is rewarded by increasing your proximity to your gender of choice within the binary system.

None of that works for me. Most of what I do is neither feminine nor masculine. I'm just...existing. And that's what I want to do. I do not believe that just existing in a way that doesn't fit into the binary of masc/feminine should mean that I don't deserve the language to describe the gender I Do experience.

I'm not "other" I'm two spirit and that should have equal recognition, visibility, respect paid to it as Man & Woman do. It's why I don't really like using the word non-binary in fact! It literally just means "other" as far as I'm concerned.

Every woman is not a man but not every non-man is a woman, you know? We deserve language specific to our experiences too. Not even just to describe our oppression, but to describe our experiences which there is currently no structure for. Its all built for recognizing men & women and the experiences of Men & Women.

Likewise, me being so critical of it has landed me solidly in Other territory (even if my gender didn't) cuz the binary system we have now thinks "real" men and women don't have problems with gender (like I do).

But that's getting into gender roles so I guess I'll move into that now. We're all familiar with gender roles right?

Here's how I understand them:

The idea that you have an assigned duty or societal expectation to fulfill because of your gender

Gender roles control how you express your gender, the jobs available to you, how you behave, and even which responsibilities you have in the home

The roles you do/don't play help others determine the validuty of your gender & place in the binary.

Deviating from your gender role is perceived as a deviation from gender itself, again increasing your proximity to Other and reducing proximity to Man and Woman.

Conforming to your role is rewarded by increasing your proximity to your gender of choice within the binary system.

So as a native I know we have our own gender roles. In my tribe, they don't work like this. Very few of the gender roles in my community have the same exclusivity as traditional western gender roles, and historically all genders in my tribe have had a special & important role. Like I wanna make clear my problem isn't necessarily with gender roles, it's the colonial understanding of them, the same way my problem isn't with gender, it's with our understanding of it :3

And so, it's a no from me. Wtf you mean I'm less of a woman if I have a good job and a family? What do you mean I'm not a man if I'm a stay at home dad? Why is punching drywall considered more manly than taking your family out to dinner? Why is spending 2+ hours on your appearance a feminine trait??

Do non-binary people even have gender roles? No. And yet deviation from the norm that's assigned to you by both the gender binary and gender roles is a deviation itself. So by not having gender roles they are deviating inherently because the societal expectation is conformity.

And on that note I tried intentionally not use gendered language in this post where it's not necessary. I wrote this considering the perspectives of cis and trans women and men and nonbinary people in mind.

I hope reading this over you can begin to see why I don't believe that women are oppressed simply for being women, that trans people aren't simply oppressed for being trans, and why I think the systematic affects of gender should include not just people like me, but men too.

There are systems of belief at work here and they try very hard to maintain themselves. They are oppressive.

Like let's get into how the definition of genders doesn't exist. Only definitions of sex do. When you start trying to define gender you realize it's all loosely based on western/eurocentric beauty standards, bio-essentialism, and gender roles. Nothing else.

And I believe this is why especially Black women are attacked and accused of not being real women so much more often than other women (like we've seen with Imane Khelif just this week)

I mean it's even the running joke in TERF circles that a woman can't be defined outside of sex.

TERFs use that lack of definition in their favor specifically to regulate women and womanhood which I feel like speaks to the bigotry of it. People like TERFs get the pick the definition that excludes the women they don't like. Racists use the lack of definition to exclude Black and brown women, transphobes use the lack of definition to ban abortion,

I've seen the lack of definition and language to describe this experience hurt women over and over and over. And it's not just women.

Anything here also goes for men and nonbinary people

And again, I only stress that as a point to make because as a two spirit I am not afforded the privilege nor luxury of being able to not see how the current understanding (or lack thereof) of gender is part of my people's ongoing genocide.

I deserve language to talk about my experiences and I deserve to talk about them without someone else saying their right to speak on oppression is stronger than mine so I shouldn't speak at all.

So does everyone else.

Everyone deserves and needs to be able to talk to other people about their experiences. This is how we learn about shared experiences and can begin talking about the causes of them, relating and comforting one another, and eventually yes dismantling the systems harming us.

You can't build community if you do not allow the community to find itself and be built, you get me??

I'm two spirit and it hurts.

If after all this anyone still wants to tell me I can't talk about my own experiences or even create the language to talk about it because the pain "isn't real" or cuz women "have it worse" or because I'm "not specifically being targeted for being a (two spirit) like women are targeted"

Then I'd like to know which white supremacist gave them the authority to make that decision.

Cuz now as I've explained here, I fully believe gender as it's currently and systemically understood is inherently oppressive and targets anyone who deviates to uphold itself in the name of the patriarchy and colonization.

Likewise, it's my belief that since (cis) women have historically been the loudest people challenging the idea that men should be in charge, of course it would look like the patriarchy targets women. Historically, it was women who've demanded reform and change and so they are targets for being threats.

That said, one of the first things colonizers did when they got here was try to erase two spirit people, burn our histories, and destroyed other evidence of gender diversity. So the image is much less clear that women have been the only targets of the patriarchy. As I've written, I think anyone who deviates from the norm becomes a target because if you're outside the norm then you're a danger to the norm.

I like to think the way I see things gives room for multiple experiences to exist simultaneously and still holds people accountable where it's necessary too so pls lmk if and where it doesn't

So like....all that finally said.

I'm gonna go ahead and say that men aren't as much of a threat to the system because as we all know, they are men and as such they are systemically less inclined to fight the patriarchy that privileges them.

There is no NEED to systematically regulate men the same way that everyone else is regulated.

And I don't think trans men or non-binary men or feminine men or men of color are attacked for being men, no. I agree with that and I'm not saying otherwise.

I think they are attacked for deviating from the gender norm set by white colonizers/white supremacist/patriarchy and thus are attacked for being threats to it, as I think anyone who deviates from those norms will be targeted.

Which is the same underlying reason that any of us are ever targeted. So I think it's kinda shitty to be weird about it, yeah.

Insisting that All men need to be systemically targeted before we recognize the experiences of marginalized men is pretty straight up bigoted in every way it can be honestly.

And to make my point, all women are targeted by the patriarchy right and yet the only people in the spotlight of mainstream feminism are the people least affected: cishet white women.

So when you hear "we'll recognize the struggles of marginalized men later," Ask what that means and how they'll do it because most people can't even handle recognizing marginalized women. There are books and articles and stories and movies about how marginalized women feel abandoned by mainstream feminism, other women, and everyone else; especially Black women.

.....Colonizers don't want to recognize things or people they don't like.

And they don't address things they don't see as problems.

That includes the nuances of gender violence and gender inequality.

[nekropsii]

“Bad Representation” is actually a topic I’m really passionate about and interested in, I could talk about it for ages. The way people handle “Bad Representation” as a concept is genuinely fascinating, too, so this is both an analytical fascination and an anthropological one.

For clarity, I thoroughly do believe there is such thing as “Bad Representation”, especially when it comes to expressions of pure bigotry from the person doing the representing… But I personally think everyone’s bar for what counts as “Bad Representation” is set a little bit too strictly, has no real account for capitalistic and/or historical restrictions - For Example: Language and common understanding of queer identity being far different in the 1950’s than it is now, and Studio Meddling - and also, interestingly, tends to take no account for the opinion of those getting “represented”, or the idea of individual satisfaction.

There’s been many, many times where a character is objectively pretty bad representation by modern standards, but discussion surrounding it takes no account for the concept of Resonance. Sometimes a character is not “Good Representation” as an objective concept, but they are relatable, likable, and quite fun to watch. I’ve seen quite a few instances of people talking down to the mentally ill or disabled for enjoying a Slasher in part because of their disorder/disability, or queer people for enjoying Hays Code villains. Sometimes a character isn’t written kindly, or isn’t written well, but they really resonate with you… And that counts for something.

One of my favorite characters - one who has helped me come to terms with my cPTSD and OSDD - is a representation of PTSD + DID that is objectively not very good. He’s basically a Vietnam War veteran, who gets an Alter in the middle of the war that is basically a self defensive Murder Mode. It’s literally the PTSD from The War and Evil Alter cliche, but there’s just some aspects that really hit for me, like the fact that he’s considered the nicest, kindest person in the cast, and the alter is portrayed clearly as being in constant self defense mode, thinking he’s still in the middle of the war, and also being quite silly. There’s several details I view as being done pretty well, a whole arc about him grappling with his mental health in a way I find quite fascinating and visceral, and I enjoy him quite a lot! But many would agree that he’s “Bad Representation” because of the War PTSD and Evil Alter tropes. Even I agree that those things kinda suck, but that’s not stopping the fact that this character has meant a lot to me, and that I really would not be the same level of okay with myself if I hadn’t discovered this character.

I’ve caught flack for this. I’ve seen many other people latch onto a character who is not executed very well because they find them personally relatable, or are using them to figure some things out about themselves, and also catch flack for it because the character is not “Good Representation” for a group as a whole. No account for Resonance, no account for Individual Experience. It’s a fascinating lack of a sense of nuance.

I think people have forgotten - or perhaps do not realize - that criticizing a base concept, or base execution of a concept, is different from criticizing individual experience. It’s like the difference between criticizing the makeup industry vs. criticizing someone’s personal choice to wear makeup. It is good to point out when something is written or executed poorly, but you do not know the reason why that one individual disabled person enjoys a poorly written character who shares their disability. I would even say that they probably know more than you do that it’s written badly, because they have lived that character’s disability and you likely have not. I think you should maybe step off if a blind person really likes Terezi or something. You do not need to patronize them by telling them that she isn’t “Good Representation” because her quirk isn’t screenreader friendly, and that her blindness has a magical workaround. I think they already know that these are facts about her that are true. They like her for a reason, and that reason is Resonance.

[intersex-support]

would you consider a microperforate hymen intersex, every argument i have seen about it has come across very dsd-adjacent language (so tired this ask might not make sense)

Hi anon!

So standard disclaimer that I am not the authority on who counts as intersex. I'm happy to share my opinions and explain what I think, but there are probably people out there with different opinions than me and that's okay. Part of this is also going to be about your perspective and how you view your own experiences.

When I think about the definition of intersex, the three main parts of the definition of intersex are:

a variation in chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, genitals, or hormones

This variation of sex traits lies outside of what is typically considered "male" or "female", and is impacted by intersex oppression/compulsory dyadism.

This variation of sex traits is lifelong, either present from birth or develops later in life, and is not caused as the side effect to a medication or by another temporary cause.

Intersex is a social/political identity that developed as an umbrella term to allow for people with similar experiences to connect and organize together because of the way that society categorized and treated our different variations. It's not a static definition with clear boundaries--it's a definition that shifts depending on context, new discoveries, and different societal dynamics. (if people are familiar with disability theory/models of disability, i think about it pretty similarly to those discussions about the definitions of disability.) It's an expanding definition that looks to be inclusive, so my definition of "who counts as intersex" is a LOT broader than most doctors. At the same time, it's also clear that not everyone is intersex--obviously most people are perisex, and at some point there has to be a line. Where it gets complicated is that that perisex/dyadic people also have a lot of variation in sex characteristics as well as various hormonal and reproductive disabilities. It's not like every perisex person has identical bodies and sex traits, and it's clear that there are some cases where reproductive health conditions can cause it to feel more borderline.

There are a lot of examples of variations in sex traits that do not meet the definition of intersex. Here are some examples:

people have all different penis sizes.

people have different amounts of body hair.

people have different levels of hormones even within the "typical" range.

people have different breast sizes.

some people are circumcised while others are uncircumcised.

There are also lots of examples of hormonal and reproductive diagnoses that are not intersex variations, even though they impact things like internal reproductive organs or hormones. Here are some examples:

diabetes is a hormonal condition, but insulin isn't a sex hormone and it doesn't impact sex traits.

Endometriosis impacts periods, uterine tissue, etc, but doesn't cause a variation of sex traits outside of the sex binary in a way that's impacted by interphobia.

Menopause causes hormonal changes, but those are not intersex, because those are considered a "typical" change within the sex binary.

Infertility is caused by lots of different diagnoses and impacts reproductive function, but doesn't cause a variation of sex traits outside of the sex binary in a way that is impacted by interphobia.

Some people with these kind of hormonal or reproductive diagnoses might have some overlapping experiences with intersex people that can be a really beautiful example of solidarity. People with diabetes also have to go to endocrinologists, and we might have similar complaints with endocrinology and our rights as patients. People with endometriosis might share tips with intersex people about how to deal with our painful and atypical periods. Intersex people might also be infertile, and we might be able to provide each other meaningful support in that way. I know some people with certain diagnoses that describe their diagnoses as "intersex adjacent" because of the amount of experiences that are similar, even if they don't face the same type of intersex oppression and don't identify as intersex.

So, how does microperforate hymen fit into all of this? To me, it seems like microperforate hymen more closely fits into the category of general reproductive health conditions, rather than an intersex variation. When we look at the three parts of the intersex definition, microperforate hymen is congenital and is a variation in genitalia, but it isn't a variation in genitalia that lies outside the sex binary and that is impacted by intersex oppression. That doesn't mean that you can't face challenges, that you can't face difficulties with doctors, society, ableism, judgement, etc. It just means that it seems like microperforate hymen is more understood as a reproductive variation that still is considered within the "typical" range of non intersex experiences.

With all that being said, I still think that if there are intersex resources that make you feel seen or provide you with the kind of support that's helpful for you, you should absolutely still feel free to access those resources and participate. I know several people with "intersex adjacent" diagnoses that sometimes participate in intersex spaces, we share resources with each other, and just overall have some really beautiful solidarity. I absolutely don't want to invalidate your experience or make you feel like you're wrong for wondering this, because I think there's nothing wrong with wondering what counts as intersex or seeking for support and community with intersex community.

The way I think about defining intersex is really shaped by my understanding of intersex as a community term that allows us to connect with each other and organize with each other, and also allows us to identify the particular ways that we are made vulnerable and oppressed. This can be really vital, especially for a community that is forcibly isolated in so many ways and who has been so often denied the ability to build an identity at all, when we're just told that we have to use DSD terminology and can't live as intersex.

I think that if the current sex binary wasn't so strict, if intersex oppression wasn't so violent, if we got to a point in society where we had abolished the sex binary, if there was more education, if there was actual intersex liberation--the line between intersex and perisex would continue to blur and maybe even disappear altogether. There would just be an understanding that literally everyone has a certain degree of variation in our sex characteristics, and that the sex binary and "biological sex" is a myth. But we don't live in that world yet, and there is still a society based on the sex binary that tries to eradicate the group of people who fall outside of that. So intersex still exists as a coherent and useful term for that group of people.

It's really important to me that we talk about and use the term "intersex" in an inclusive and expansive way that embraces self diagnosis, understands there are unlabeled intersex variations, doesn't just go off medical lists of "DSDs" and leaves room for people to self identify as intersex. If someone tells me that they are intersex, I will never interrogate them, ask them to prove it, or challenge them about it, even if they have a variation that other people generally categorize as another type of hormonal/reproductive disability rather than as intersex.

I hope my thoughts on this make sense. Other intersex people, feel free to add on your perspectives--my way of thinking about it is only one perspective! And anon, please still feel free to come to this blog with other questions or if you need resources, regardless of how you identify, we're here for you.

[olderthannetfic]

https://www.tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/759877394317410304/the-recent-dunmeshi-discourse-with-the-author?source=share

I think some of this disconnect (and also the one mentioned in reblogs about Yuri on Ice) is also due to very different cultural attitudes toward neurological disabilities (like autism and ADHD) and mental illnesses (like anxiety and depression) in the the Anglosphere vs. Japan. I know it's a lot more stigmatized in Japanese culture in general and I'm guessing that also extends to fandom spaces - whereas, obviously U.S., UK etc. culture more broadly still has a long way to go but it seems like progressive nerdy spaces like female-driven corners of online fandom (or honestly, IME, most English-speaking anime fandom in general outside of like, 4chan) have embraced neurodiversity. (I think a lot of people who hang out in these spaces underestimate how not-mainstream neurodiversity is even in the West.)

Also, it seems from what I've gleaned from Japanese anime creators' interviews that there's a lot less focus on giving characters specific identity labels there than there is here, whether queer/trans ones or neurodiverse ones.

Obviously I don't think stigma toward neurodiversity is ever good, but in terms of fandoms having looser or more rigid standards for whether a character "counts" as X identity, or if creators are specifically labeling them vs. letting the work speak for itself.... I'm not sure either way is better or worse? Just different. Like the reblog mentioned Japanese fans not thinking Yuuri from YOI has anxiety because he doesn't fit every part of the DSM diagnosis. I can't tell if that person is agreeing with that perspective or not, but ftr, plenty of us with diagnosed anxiety don't fit EVERY single criterion either. I certainly don't and I have a diagnosis. (For instance, I have social anxiety but don't experience the statistically most common kind of it, anxiety around public speaking - I have no nervousness at all about giving speeches. But get me doing small talk to people I don't know well and I'm a ball of nerves.)

To me, Yuuri seemed like a really clear portrayal of it, but I could see how he could be written that way unintentionally. From what I remember in interviews, the director and writer said it wasn't intentional but they can see it now that people have told them about it, or something like that. It also seems like that aspect of his character was coming out of the director's personal experiences, and maybe she had experienced it but not been diagnosed with it.

--

[bestbeest]

Service Dogs and Prong Collars

While I personally am a very hippy-dippy +R trainer, and do not use a prong on my dog, I wanted to make a post in response to the common notion that "no real service dog uses a prong collar." I've seen this sentiment several times in the last week or so and it's worth discussing, especially given how harmful 'fake-spotting' can be to service dog teams.

Let's start with some context about the prong, first. Unlike some training tools, it's not an inherently aversive tool, in that if no pressure is applied to it (i.e. the leash is not pulled at all), it doesn't pinch or poke. A certain level of force has to be applied for the prongs to pinch the dog. I am NOT saying that prongs are not typically used aversively or that they do not ever hurt the dog. What I'm saying is that the prong itself is just a magnifying tool, which magnifies small amounts of pressure from the leash by focusing them on very small specific points.

I also want to note that some professional service dog trainers do use prongs as aversive training tools, and while I am personally of the opinion that if your dog is service-dog quality, you should not NEED aversers to train it, other valid professional trainers in the field do use them to turn out well-bshaved effective service dogs. And of course, many unskilled owner-trainers rely on them to bridge the gap between their lack of training experience/skill and the extremely high behavioral standards required of service dogs (yes, you CAN very slowly train a dog not to sniff other people by reinforcing it each time it chooses not to and then fading out treats; you can also just do a quick leash pop when it leans over to sniff someone, and the dog will get the memo much more quickly and without the level of skill at timing needed). So this post is not intended to denigrate balanced trainers who use the prong as an averser, either.

That in mind, here are a few reasons that that service dog you just saw might be perfectly legitimate AND wearing a prong collar!

The dog was initially trained on a prong and now associates it with going into 'work mode.' Service dogs need some kind of cue to tell them when to be extremely professional and serious, and when they're okay to just be a regular old dog. My dog loves going up to people and saying hello, but obviously he can't be doing that kind of thing when he's on duty. Knowing that, I decided from the beginning to teach him that the signal was wearing a certain vest, and being 'naked' meant he could goof off. Other handlers use different signals, and if the dog was initially trained using a prong, that may be its de facto signal to get serious.

The handler's disability gives them hand strength issues and even a very small pull can cause them to drop the leash. In this case the prong provides noticeable pressure much earlier than a flat collar would and reminds the dog to be very gentle with their person.

The handler's disability gives them balance issues and even a very small pull can cause them to fall over. See above.

For some reason (cerebral palsy, wheelchair user, grip strength issues, etc), the handler needs a communication tool that can magnify very small movements of the leash into something the dog can notice and understand. I actually considered using a prong for this reason, so that I could just put a small amount of directional pressure on the leash to signal to my dog that we were turning one way or the other, but ended up going with a different method. Because the prong condenses the total amount of leash pressure into smaller, stronger points, instead of distributing it broadly the way a flat collar does, much smaller or subtler movements of the leash or the handler's hand can communicate a cue to the dog!

This is just one example of why it's so important not to assume that a service dog team is fake because they don't look the way we normally expect service dogs to look. There's an incredibly wide range of disabilities out there that affect people in a myriad of ways, and even more ways they navigate and manage those disabilities. Taking photos of people and posting them online, talking about them behind their back, or even harassing them about their legitimacy in person can be incredibly harmful and can lead to disabled people not getting the support and resources they need. Think about that the next time you see a service dog that doesn't meet your expectations!

[cripplecharacters]

How should you write/draw burn survivors? I know this isn't a drawing blog but I don't know of one that I could ask this question to.

Hello!

I'm not a burn survivor myself, so I'll mostly talk about facial differences/visible disability in general and link some stuff made by burn survivors.

First thing, I think it's important to remember that being a burn survivor changes a lot of things - not only appearance. Very important part is the psychological one, but I'm not a burn survivor so I will just let the resources linked below speak.

From the physical aspect, burns can also come with: chronic pain, limited range of motion due to scarring, tightened skin, problems with regulating temperature, itching, skin irritation, and even different nutritional needs during the initial healing process.

There is also specific everyday care associated with burns - something you basically never see in fiction. That could be things like occupational therapy, physical therapy, skincare (like heavy moisturizing and scar massaging), wearing sunblock, wearing splints, or stretching to prevent contractures or tightness.

There are also different types of burns and they (unsurprisingly) differ from each other - for example, electrical burns have a much higher rate of amputation than any other type. Chemical burns can cause eye issues. A burn caused by a fire in a closed space might result in a brain injury due to the lack of oxygen. A much larger portion of people than you (probably) assume have survived burn injuries as small children, and if they were young enough they might not even remember the event at all, unlike older people who might be very affected by the trauma.

Experiences of a person with 80% body surface burns, a person with quadruple amputations from an electrical burn, a person with a facial burn, and a person burnt very recently will be different from someone who has a 5% body surface 2nd degree burn in a spot that’s usually hidden, who has lived with their burn for a decade - despite them all being burn survivors.

When it comes to more thorough research, I recommend going through Phoenix Society’s and Face Equality International’s websites to learn more about both real burn survivor’s perspectives, and face equality as a social justice topic. I think the 3rd link (see below) puts it very well when talking about burn survivors being represented in fiction:

“Most likely, these characters were not created by someone with lived experience. The result is an increasingly garbled game of telephone [...] To avoid contributing to this false narrative, embrace research as part of the process. Explore interviews, first-person accounts, and articles from reliable sources.”

I personally think that the links below should be mandatory reading for writing not only burn survivors, not only people with facial differences, but visibly disabled people in general - because the treatment we get is often so similar the advice still holds up just fine. And if you don't plan on writing any of these, you should still read them to see how prevalent of a problem ableism in media is.

Lise Deguire's Hey Hollywood - scars don't make you evil.

Face Equality International's International Media Standard on Disfigurement.

Niki Averton's Tips for Writing about Burn Survivors.

The main sentiment that you will read from basically any first-hand source is that if you're writing the burn survivor to be either:

evil (just throw the whole character away. please.)

a guy with the "World's Saddest Most Tragic Backstory Ever and It's So Sad and Tragic" (because he revealed he has a scar.)

a helpless victim who is there to be The Helpless Victim

...then you're already doing it wrong and need to make some major changes.

From our blog's reblogs and posts, you might want to look at tips for writing a visibly different/disabled character and tips on drawing people with facial differences. Neither are specific to burn survivors but cover the topic of visible disability and facial differences.

Now for tips on drawing burn survivors (that weren't included in the last link);

Reference real people. 99.9% drawings of burn survivors seem to go through the same "increasingly garbled game of telephone" that Niki Averton mentions with how burn survivors are written, in that the newer the drawing, the less in common it has with how real people with burns look like because people reference from each other and none of them ever think to actually check if their depiction is accurate. If you just google "burn survivor" you will very quickly notice that burn survivors don't have that damn red overlay layer put on top of their skin. It just doesn't look like that, and basic research (aka Google Images search) will tell you that - and still, people color a hand with bright red and think that's how it looks like (it doesn't).

In the same vein, maybe don't just draw an able-bodied person and then put some scarring on top (or maybe do exactly that. No burn scar and no burn survivor is the same, and there are people that fit what I just described... but hear me out for a second). Think about how scars interact with their features - do they have both of their ears? Do they still have all of their hair? Do they only have parts of their eyebrow? Do they have all of their fingers? Can they move the same as before their burn, or are their scars limiting their joints? How did their body react to the post-burn hypermetabolism? Lots to think about. Take into account what type and thickness of burns your character has.

Ditch the mask trope. Just ditch it. There's no need to cover your character's scar from the world unless you as the author think it requires to be hidden, is too scary to show, or other ableist trope that seems to always come up with drawings of visibly disabled people, especially burn survivors. The one exception I will mention is a transparent face orthosis/mask (TFO) that facial burn survivors might wear while awaiting a skin graft early after their injury. But as the name suggests, it's transparent and doesn't work for the awful "ohh scary facial difference better cover it up and only reveal it in some hyper dramatic scene!!" trope because you can see right through it. (I will also mention that TFOs are a very modern thing. Your medieval burn survivor wouldn't be wearing one.)

No "body horror", no "gore" tags or trigger warnings or whatever. That's a human being. If you feel the need to warn your followers before they see a disabled person existing, you're better off not drawing them.

Some last notes;

Throughout this ask I used the term "burn survivor" rather than "burn victim" because that is, to my knowledge, the general community preferred phrase. Individual opinions will differ (because no group is a monolith) but "burn survivor" is generally the safest term to use and probably the best if talking about a fictional character.

Similarly, I used "facial difference" rather than "disfigurement". Just as the above, opinions will differ on what is the best to use but I personally, as someone with facial asymmetry and a cranial nerve disorder, heavily prefer the term "facial difference" over "disfigurement". (I am in this case The Individual Opinion Differing because you can notice that in the links above, facial difference and disfigurement are used interchangeably. The general community uses both, some people have specific preferences. I'm some people.) When talking about a fictional character, "facial difference", "visible difference" and "disfigurement" are all probably fine. Just stay away from calling a person "deformed".

mod Sasza

[covid-safer-hotties]

"You Have to Live Your Life:" Responses to Common COVID Minimizing Phrases - Published Aug 6, 2024 By: Olivia Belknap

If you're still COVIDing, you've likely heard phrases, like "it's mild now," or "you have to live your life," repeated over and over. You might be wondering, "what do I even say here? How do I respond to this?" I've listed some of the most common minimizing phrases and some potential responses to them. Feel free to adapt these and make them your own. I've included a variety of responses with different tones, depending on how much you want to be #saltingthevibes.

I want to recognize you might not always have the time or emotional energy to get into these discussions. Some people unfortunately aren't engaging in good faith, so it's important to be able to discern for yourself when you want to have these conversations. You don't always have to educate people, it can be exhausting! For those times when you want to respond but are at a loss for words in the moment, here are some ideas to get you started.

Starting off with one of my (least) favorites:

"You have to live your life!"

"I am living my life. Wearing a mask doesn't stop me from living my life, it makes it possible for me to do the things I love more safely." "I'd love to be able to get out and do more things, but unfortunately that's not safe for me because so few people are masking." "I would be a lot harder to live my life if COVID disabled me." "Living my life means protecting my health, in the short and long term." "I've adapted how I live my life based on the research about all of the long term health effects of a COVID infection."

"How long are you going to keep doing this for?"

"I'll probably always wear a mask in public spaces, when you know better you do better!" "There's no expiration date on keeping myself safe and protecting my health." "When we've widely implemented clean air standards and there's a sterilizing vaccine for COVID, then I might update my current precautions." "I really wish I didn't have to do this either! But given what I know about COVID and Long COVID, this is the best choice for me." "How long are you going to keep doing this for? It seems like you're sick all the time now, it sounds really unpleasant."

"We have to live with COVID."

"I'm glad you agree the government has done a terrible job trying to mitigate the spread!" "To me, living with COVID means doing what we can to protect ourselves, not just giving up entirely." "We also have to live with car accidents, that's why I wear my seatbelt to protect myself." "What if we didn't have to? What if we collectively did more to clean the air and create safer living conditions for all of us?" "Unfortunately you're right, that's why I'll continue to mask to keep myself and my community safer."

"It's mild now/it's just a cold/flu."

"Many illnesses seem like 'just a cold/flu' when you're first infected, but can still have long term health consequences, like mono or HIV." "You can develop Long COVID even if your initial symptoms are mild or asymptomatic." "I'm not as worried about the initial symptoms of the acute infection, I'm more concerned about the significant risk of Long COVID." "You're lucky your symptoms weren't very severe initially. For me, COVID was a lot worse than a cold." "I don't want to get sick with a cold either."

"I got it X times and I'm fine!"

"I'm sorry to hear you've had so many infections. COVID can cause silent damage throughout our bodies, it might be a good idea to go in for a check up with your doctor." "I'm glad you're feeling fine so far, but my experience has been different." "Your risk of Long COVID increases with each infection, so I'm doing what I can to avoid getting it." "I hear that in your experience, a COVID infection hasn't been a big deal. Unfortunately not everyone is so lucky and many are dealing with significant Long COVID symptoms."

"You're young and healthy, you'll be fine/ only the vulnerable need to worry."

"I used to think the same thing! It turns out I have some underlying risk factors that mean an infection could be very harmful to me." "Everyone is at risk of Long COVID, and your risk increases with each infection." "You cannot know someone's health status by looking at them. A lot of young people are high risk as well." "I don't appreciate you making assumptions about my health status." "Did you know more than 75% of Americans have at least one risk factor? More than 40% have two or more, and almost 20% have three or more! Being high risk is more common than you think." "There are actually a lot of factors that can make someone high risk, like a history of smoking, depression, asthma, ADHD, and more!"

"Kids don't get COVID/it's mild for kids."

"Unfortunately many studies show that rates of Long COVID in kids is similar to the rates in adults." "COVID is the 8th leading cause of death in children in the US." "Kids can be high risk for COVID, like if they have asthma, ADHD, autism, diabetes, or other common health issues." "Kids don't deserve to be repeatedly infected with an illness that we know causes long term damage." "I'd encourage you to read some of the stories about kids with Long COVID, it's heartbreaking for them and their families."

"Long COVID is rare."

"I'm curious where you learned that, because that doesn't fit into my understanding of Long COVID." "Studies show rates around 20% of adults infected will go on to develop Long COVID, and many studies show higher rates. Your risk increases with each infection." "Even if you're right, I'm not willing to risk it." "Have you noticed an increase in weird symptoms or health issues in your circle? Fatigue, headaches, GI issues, stroke, heart attack, blood clots and a ton of other issues can all be caused by a COVID infection." "It's more common than you might think, there are over 200+ possible symptoms and it can look different in everyone."

"My doctor doesn't wear a mask."

"Yikes! How unfortunate your doctor isn't up to date on the science and isn't doing more to protect their patients." "It's too bad how many doctors don't stay up to date with important health information." "Doctors also used to smoke cigarettes in healthcare facilities and recommend them to patients. Just goes to show you doctors aren't always right." "The medical field scorned the doctor who recommended they start washing their hands... I'm seeing a lot of parallels here." "Unfortunately it can take many years for practices like these to become more mainstream."