#you know those 'most homophobic gay shows' this is the most ableist disabled show

[angorwhosebabyisthis]

[cws: psychiatric abuse, torture, homophobia, ableism, sanism, racism, pictures of taxidermy. boy this show is a lot sometimes lmfao]

-

so something @thecottageinthedark noticed recently that i'm still fucked up about is that pericles' cage in the asylum isn't actually a bird cage.

it's a bell jar.

for those who don't know what a bell jar is, it's a type of taxidermy display for preserving delicate specimens, most often birds. it's easy for their feathers to get dusty or disintegrate over time if they're left out in the open; a bell jar not only keeps off dirt and keeps people from touching them, but it's made to create a vacuum inside to keep everything where it is.

another layer to this reference is that the book The Bell Jar, by Sylvia Plath, is a retelling of her own experiences with mental illness and the attempts made to treat it at the time. notably, one of the major themes of the book is psychiatric abuse.

pericles is also not only a gay man forcefully committed to an asylum in what is most likely intended to be the 70s, but a very obvious and already horribly handled fantasy metaphor for both physically disabled people and POC. (in particular the talking animals' role in the worldbuilding heavily mirrors Black americans irl, which holy shit there is so much to unpack there all by itself. there is So Much)

(fun little bonus on the side: he's kept in a cell with extremely bright blue/white light 24/7, at an angle where it'd be even more difficult to block it out than if it were overhead. this would make it impossible to get any decent fucking sleep, which is widely recognized as one of the worst forms of torture to exist. they did this to him for 20 years straight.)

so, to recap: gay man and analogue for disabled people/POC, who is also portrayed as an ~evil crazy malicious psychopath,~ is kept in not only a display case for scientific specimens, but one specifically made--in-universe and out--to recreate something that is done to his demographic as a metaphorical disabled person/POC.

and not only that, and not only do people talk about him--in front of him, like he's not even there--as a specimen while gawking at him in this position, but he is being displayed like the stuffed and mounted corpse of a disabled person/POC.

he is said to belong on that display for 'the rest of his miserable [disabled/POC] life.' no one disagrees with this. he's painted as smugly bullying the violent abusive guard. in general he's portrayed as Scary and Evil Now for having been in this situation. and when he escapes, it kicks off what end up being the most heavy-duty problems for the protagonists, which result in the Bad Ending for the nibiru timeline; if he had stayed there, continued to be objectified and tortured with homophobic/racist/ableist violence for the rest of his life, the timeline almost certainly wouldn't have been doomed.

and they used a real person's autobiography about their experiences with psychiatric abuse for this. and to position them in the role of someone it should have not only happened to, but been even more horrifically dehumanizing and cruel.

yeah. i..... yeah.

the creators of this show are genuinely really good at putting together layered references like this, some more obscure than others, which are rewarding to discover and add depth when you do, and it is a crying fucking shame that they like to use it for shit like this. god damn lmao

[llycaons]

other nice things about iontbo in it's final third of the story - kmy's character growth! finally! mst protecting and calming that old man who was in a panic attack just like mgt does for him! in general mst's increased confidence and pride in himself and his determination to confront and move on from what happened to him. I love him so much

kmy and ju-ri being friends WOULD be nice but they don't actually feel like friends the show just tells us they are 😭

discussion of child abuse under the cut

the entire show I've admired the way kmy was written in reaction to her father dying...very few times have I seen it depicted that survivors absolutely refuse to forgive their abusive parents, refuse to consider their point of view, refuse to empathize with them, or refuse to try to reconnect with them. kmy doesn't want to spend time with her father. she has no interest in improving their relationship. she refuses calls from the hospital and she treats him as if he's already dead. she frequently affirms that she doesn't care what happens to him no matter how he's related to her. she only interacts with him to prove a point to him. consistently. and this is an unusual character but it's such a satisfying arc to watch after seeing how abuse survivors are usually written

the single concession she makes is sharing a story about something kind he did for her as a child, but that changes nothing about what he did to her. but she doesn't make a move to go to him as he's dying because dying doesn't absolve anyone of the hurt they've done. she'd rather be with her friends and her new family. and she clearly still has some conflicting feelings after his death - we can see her stone-faced staring at his urn - but as a whole her reaction to him is just. chef kiss. I think it conveys the nuance that would be realistic without diminishing her for her feelings. her father's final words may have been regretful and tearful, but she wasn't obligated to be there and cry with him. even if he acted the way he did out of motives that are slightly more noble than she expected, and no matter than he had a brain tumor interfering with his judgement. he still hurt her

this show covers quite a lot of cases of child abuse, domestic violence, and trauma but none relating to sexual violence which does make me think. was it too upsetting to include? too messy?

this show also shies away from structural violence and systemic problems, leaning more towards individual mistreatment and individual mental illnesses. the most troubling implication is how the murderer is written...honestly I think the murder plot is very jarring and doesn't fit the rest of the story at all. having the obsessive, abusive, controlling, murderous character so heavily tied to mental illness really weakens the message that people with mental illnesses and personality disorders are human beings deserving of compassion who have a high chance of experiencing, or are currently undergoing, some kind of trauma

like they could have very easily made their main villains the people who mocked and humiliated mst, or the politician who mistreated his bipolar son, or any of the abusive parents and spouses the patients encounter. but they had to make it this ~crazy~ woman who's oohh hiding in the shadows the whole time because she's so evil and sneaky and manipulative and loves tormenting the children she once knew. because...she's crazy?

related to that - that reveal came out of NOWHERE! now that I know who the murderer is, nothing changed. this was a pporly written reveal...no hints, no suggestions, it's nonsense. the character's behavior was exactly as expected of her in her role. no satisfaction in the rewatch, nothing new gleaned, and no way to predict this very random character was the killer. besides like, she has access to the hospital

and oh, a psych hospital for the site of a haunting. very original and not at all encouraging the very mindset it seems to be trying to counter

OH. also how did kmy grow up in a house with a father who tried to kill her? did she just live with him until she was 18? this was never explained

AND ANOTHER thing. I don't know if this is the same in SK but a pt with a brain tumor wouldn't even be in a psych hospital. that is a medical problem - unless experiencing depression or other psych issues, he would be in a cancer center! MAN

[mellometal]

gurrrrrrl i love your dhar mann posts. ive seen some youtubers call him out for cringe but you are the only one who calls out his racism. if you watch his videos you usually see black kids being portrayed as bullies to the white ones or asains being portrayed as smart. not to mention the portrayal of women - their eithr housewives-esque women submissive to their husbands or 'bitchy' sluts that act spoiled, and are usually punished for not liking the boy...it just reads like a terrible incel fanfiction

Hello, anon! Thank you for sending this in. ^.^

There are definitely more people who do call out his racism in those videos, and they did this before I called him out on it, so I'm not the only one. (Did you mean on here or in general?)

Being a white woman, I will never know what BIPOC or AAPI go through on a daily basis. What they go through in general is horrible and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. That doesn't stop me from educating myself about what they go through, reading up on their histories, sharing things about BIPOC and AAPI historical figures and their impacts on the world, supporting BIPOC and AAPI creators, speaking out against racism, signing petitions, sharing resources with people who may need them, and calling out racism in general.

His videos with disabled people are pretty ableist too, which is what really infuriated me, as a disabled woman who works with disabled people for a living. The video he made about Autism Spectrum Disorder especially was so insulting, filled with misinformation, and so ableist, that it felt like he was treating being autistic like it was a bad thing. It's not a bad thing to be autistic. I'm autistic. I was diagnosed when I was sixteen (when it was still referred to as A$p3rg3r'$ $yndr0m3), but never was open about it until this year. That kind of rhetoric was one of the factors that made me mask for seven years.

A lot of times, he doesn't cast a physically disabled actor for physically disabled characters. He just gives a couple of the child actors crutches. This is a reoccurring thing in the entertainment industry as a whole. Glee is another example of an able-bodied actor being cast as a physically disabled character. (I hate that show for a plethora of reasons. The fact they didn't bother to cast a physically disabled actor for the role of a physically disabled character is one of them.) I very rarely see physically disabled actors in media. Specifically, younger physically disabled actors. That needs to change. At least for live-action media. I'm sure the physically disabled kids would be happy to see actors who are like them. I've seen a lot of physically disabled characters in cartoons, which is great! I encourage them to make more physically disabled characters in cartoons. I don't see too many in anime either, so hopefully that'll change too.

The way Dhar Mann portrays BIPOC and AAPI in general makes me sick looking at it. He either paints black people as total damsels in distress or makes them big bullies. When Karen, the racist and ableist soccer mom™️ is being racist towards her son's friend and assuming the worst of him, it turns out that kid has rich parents! (Totally unrealistic too.) She goes on the whole, "I'm sorry for judging you before I got to know you!" shit instead of saying, "Hey, I'm sorry for being a racist bigot towards you and believing in gross stereotypes about black people."

Painting black people as "thugs" who all are in gangs and steal stuff is so incorrect. I'm sure that people who think like this get their pseudo education from watching movies with black people in them or rap music and get the impression that they're all like that. Like, no. Don't believe everything you see on the big screen. Not to mention how they targeted a black kid as a suspect for drugs in a video, when the real suspect turned out to be a white kid. They do that in real life A LOT. It's nauseating.

Selling drugs and stuff isn't an inherently bad thing. Not ideal, but some people don't exactly have any other choice except to sell drugs. Doing drugs doesn't mean you're a bad person. That kind of stuff hits home for me. Being brought up by parents who both did drugs, being around people who do drugs, and having friends who do drugs, I don't see people who do drugs as inherently bad people. They need to be treated with decency and like human beings, not like aggressive animals.

The whole "Asians are geniuses" stereotype is damaging. It's bad enough that Asians as a whole have all these ridiculous expectations put on them. Pretty gross and harmful stereotypes! Saying that all Asians are geniuses isn't a compliment to them. Yes, you can praise their work all you want, but don't treat them like they're attractions at a zoo. They're not robots. They're real human beings with their own thoughts, opinions, feelings, emotions, families, friends, jobs, issues, etc.

A YouTuber named Jarvis Johnson is an example of a person calling out Dhar Mann's racism in his videos. If you want to see them through a black person's perspective, definitely check Jarvis out. He's a great content creator and he definitely deserves more subscribers.

Oh my god, don't even get me started on the "sugar daddy" videos. There are so many of them, I don't know where to begin with tearing them apart. They're so BAD. Dhar Mann paints almost all of his so-called "morals" at the end of his videos with "Don't judge a book by its cover! uwu" instead of actually addressing the real issues in the video. He never bothers to address how people think money can buy you happiness. I mean, it can, to an extent, but only so much.

He recently made a video about a gay teenage boy in sports, his coach was being all homophobic, kicked him off the team, etc. First off, if that happened in real life, that school AND the coach would get sued for discrimination and the coach would most likely lose their job.

The fatphobia in some of his videos is fucking gross too, speaking as a bigger woman. One of the child actors was literally put in a fat suit in a "flashback". I mean, they do have fat actors. They have fat child actors too. Wouldn't it make sense to hire fat actors for fat characters? He's done that for another video he made about a girl getting bullied for her weight. (Fat suits are fatphobic.)

I feel bad for all the actors in those videos. I'm sure none of them vibe with the scripts. I hope they actually get roles in better things.

[kabii-kins]

DNI LIST

Hey. I’m making this list because after roughly seven years on this site (at the time I made this damn list), I should start isolating myself from certain demographics. Especially those that pertain to immensely toxic fan bases. If you’re gonna make fun of me for making this list, go ahead. I honestly don’t care as much as I did before. (It’ll still bother me, I just wont publicly whine about it.)

Do not interact with me if you’re:

Are a ProShipper/Anti-Anti: Ships Pedophilia; Ships incest; Advocates for either or / both; is a MAP or support MAPs

Racist: force racist caricatures on other characters who do not show them; draw ethnic characters that put an emphasis on stereotypes pertaining to that ethnicity; virtue signal despite being racist

LGBTPhobic: lesbiphobia/Homophobes; Biphobes; anti-pan; Transphobes; aphobes and arophobes; engaging in behavior that disrespects the LGBT Community, including promoting blatant queercoding and baiting; are an exclusionist; an overall fetishizer of the LGBT community and its people; as well as the kind of person who thinks that being a member of the LGBT community also means that you can be derogatory towards said community. (tongue in cheek humor =/= blatant LGBTPhobia) NOTE: "MSPEC LESBIANS" COUNT AS LESBIPHOBIA, ANTI-PAN, BIPHOBIA, AND OTHER ORENTATIONS THAT FIND ATTRACTION TO MORE THAN ONE GENDER IDENTITY.

Ableist:  Talks down physical disabilities; Talks down mental disabilities; Talks down Neurodivergency; Glorifies Physical and Mental disabilities; Glorifies Neurodivergency; Thinks Disabilities and Neurodivergency are merely an excuse in not being able to progress in life (either not quickly or not at all); disregarding Neurodivergency as a whole

Generally Toxic: Promotes Toxic Mindsets; Supports eating disorders and other forms of self harm; Exposes minors to NSFW (both harsh gore and pornography); Is toxic about petty things, such as ships, characters, and misunderstandings; excuses “loli” and “shota” as okay since “the characters aren’t real” and/or “it’s just fiction”; Promotes fat shaming

ECT: Likes HGS (High Guardian Spice) unironically (the writers have a history of racism, transphobia, and sexism, and don't know how to write people regardless of gender identity, skin color and sexual orientation); kin Rougefort Cookie from Cookie Run Ovenbreak (I've had horrible experiences regarding people who kin them. And don't want to be associated with anyone who kins them as a result of those bad experiences. If you identify with/as them that's fine, just... Don't interact with me, please.) Take part in the MYCT fanbase they aren't as bad now, and most fans tend to stay in their own lane. But I'm leaving it up for the sake of those who are still little shits, tbh. Likes/Defends the Boyfriends webtoon (creator has a shifty past that he, if he was truly sorry for it, wouldn't keep doing controversial things-- like making one of the characters canonically a proshipper, for example. Just because the creator himself is Trans does not exempt him from the shit he has done. The fact that webtoon shills this out as their token gay boy comic is,,, ew.)

[drake-the-incubus]

What’s Bad for You is Good for Me

Or otherwise called, conflicting needs in representation. Which is most certainly a thing.

Sometimes we have specific needs ton representation that isn’t met due to certain circumstances. Recently I posted something about how Lazy Eyes are portrayed as inherently ableist, despite the fact I grew up with it being incredibly disabling and being treated poorly for having one, and in a discussion with other people, have been told they feel the same way.

Today, I saw a post about how someone being transphobic, complained about how trans characters gave him dysphoria. While he was incredibly transphobic about him, I realized that there’s intersectionality on representation no one really talks about.

We don’t talk about how it’s weird to define representation as good and bad depending on how stereotyped it looks. We just sort of do it.

Like, for example, a flamboyantly gay, gender-nonconforming man who is very open about his sexuality and might even be sexual. This is considered a horrible stereotype. I... I've known gay men like that who genuinely enjoyed the nice representation of those characters.

I think the issue is the difference between how it's played off, and why it's being done. And I'll use a few examples.

Power Puff Girls has the Devil who suspiciously borders on a transmisogynistic and homophobic stereotype, being a villain. The femininity that the character displays is part of the villainous routine, and there's not much to the character outside of this. When the character feels like it, he drops his femininity to become masculine and aggressive. Top it off with being the devil, it's pretty bad. This is bad representation, if not for the villain part, then for the fact that there's no substance to it at all.

Which is actually what the problem with representation usually is. It's two-dimensional, and it's villanizing. The character is not only that way because it makes them more villainous, but it also helps make us look horrifying to the viewers.

What changes when you include Lil Nas X's recent release, MONTERO (Call me by your name)? It's a form of self-expression and it's inherently fighting back against the need to sanitize oneself for an oppressing class. It's fighting back against the idea that in order to exist, we need to be pure. To be accepted into heaven we atone for being gay. It's a rejection of Modern Religion and society's base treatment of us.

And it's necessary. We can't have the soft, loving, sanitized rep. It can suit plenty of us. Being accepted into heaven- in spite of our flaw of being gay? I've been told that before- isn't what everyone wants. In order to have reached acceptance, we must not readily display the "bad" part of ourselves.

If a straight woman was to want for a dude, it's highly more accepted than if a man were to do it. Regardless of the man's input?

I can't go to a conversation, openly as a trans man, and discuss my attraction to men as a man, and not get shut down, "because it's weird" but I do have to sit there and hear talk about anime boobs. Sometimes for hours. Because you know, that's acceptable in society, me liking men as a dude isn't.

And the thing is, neither is bad. A gay man being openly sexual and open about his sexuality in media, so long as it's not his defining trait and he's not demonized for it in the media- aka villainizing a gay man who is flamboyantly gay and gnc is very common- it's good.

A gay man who is soft, caring and understanding for his partner, emotionally mature and shies away from his sexuality is also good. It's not representation I need, but for younger audiences it is.

A gay man who is selective in his men vs a man who isn't. We need both.

Representation makes us feel human. Like we're not horrible for existing, and one set is never going to be enough.

For example. I'm a very androgynous trans man. I wear dresses and makeup.

I enjoy the feminine trans characters because they can exist and so can I. I also enjoy the masculine trans characters.

I hate the written trans experience and I absolutely cannot stand fanfiction regarding trans man, regardless of which it is.

It's dysphoria-inducing. Why? Because it focuses on the aspect of being trans rather than the aspect of existing as a man, and those aspects tend to center around dysphoria or being AFAB. Either way, the experience is uncomfortable for me to interact with and can really bother me.

That form of representation isn't for me. I live the trans experience. I don't need it in my media. I want a person who lives the average life and happens to be trans. Where being trans isn't the center of the story.

Other people need it the exact opposite, and if being trans isn't integral it bothers them. They feel like being trans is on a higher level of their identity and their rep needs to reflect that.

In fact, I talked to another trans friend of mine, who said that the kind of stories that focus on the body being AFAB was reaffirming to them and it helped them along. They loved content like that. Where as I couldn't bear it, it caused me issues and I saw it personally as harmful.

The thing about rep isn't actually the stereotypes, most of the time. IE a feminine trans man character isn't bad rep, so long as he's an actual human being.

I also think the person making it and the intent behind the character are important.

Example 1: A cis woman who makes a trans woman villain the epitome of masculinity who is pretending to be a woman, and is defeated by a woman, is just bad rep.

Why? Because a) it targets and puts down another minority to uplift women. b) it intentionally tries to erase trans women from being women. c) it reinforces the stereotype that trans women are just men trying to pretend to be women and are inherently violent. d) it demonized masculine trans women who may have been denied- or do not want- to medically transition.

Example 2: Created by someone who is LGBT+ with input from a trans man. A trans man is flamboyantly gay, talks about how much he loves men quite a lot, and is known for being fairly feminine. He enjoys hobbies such as boating and fishing, and his story is about connecting with his community and accepting himself as a person without needing to give a part of himself up.

Is example 2 real? I hope it is, I'd enjoy that. But this is good rep. Yes, it plays on stereotypes, but this is a person. Their story is about their identity and they have traits outside of the stereotype. For a flamboyantly gay trans man, this would be perfect. If you challenged toxic masculinity in the movie and addressed how trans men feel the need to overperform into toxic masculinity for acceptance and how it ruins our connections with our emotions, it would be pretty great.

Example 3: Created based on a real person. A character who is clearly autistic, and struggles with communication, who acts childish and clearly has a prominent lazy eye. This character struggles with tasks but gets them right. This is done with input and the person's input

Bad Rep?

If you said yes you'd be wrong. A character based on a real human being can't be bad representation. Because a) they're human, and b) there's a nuance to people that needs to be addressed.

Human beings will never be a monolith and having a monolith idea of representation to show oppressors what we're like ignores the fact of human diversity.

I can only speak for myself. This means the topic of race and how to handle racial issues in media vs the sanitization of the culture people of colour have, is not one I can speak on, and I wish I could have input on it.

I'll add if I'm not cohesive enough, it's usually because of Autism and possible Comorbid ADHD fighting each other.

If someone better at the topic can handle this, feel free to reblog and add on, I'll reblog additions and reply to any concerns made.

[yourwakingnightmares]

quoting you "But our brains are hardwired to find certain things attractive." and you said it on a post when you trying to talk about why people prefer white characters. not hard to figure out what you were saying there, i have reading comprehension (and a not-american education, your assumption was weird). also, here have this not on anon. not a coward just used to racists who pile on if you call them on it, but i can deal.

Dear sir and/or ma’am,

Firstly, kudos! I’m glad we can have an actual conversation without hiding behind anonymity. Still not sure how productive of a conversation we’re going to have, since you’re insistent I’m racist, but I’m now willing to discuss it with you further since we can have an open conversation and dialogue.

No, I did not say that people were hardwired to find white people attractive. I said our brains are weird; that they’re hardwired to find certain things attractive, and -the important bit you missed -is that there’s no rhyme nor reason to why.

For example, to get a bit personal here. I like short, stocky men, and I have a thing for big/abnormal shaped noses on men. Richard Harmon, Seth Gilliam, and Aaron Stanford are examples of this. In women, I like well-muscled and taller than me (which doesn’t take much, I’m 5′2″). Examples of this would include Marie Avgeropoulos, Rosario Dawson, and Lupita Nyong’o.

Now, clearly, I have two very different and distinct things I look for, depending on gender. This makes no sense, logically, and I am well aware of this; if I like large or abnormal shaped noses on men, I should like the same thing on women, logically. If I like short, stocky men, I should like the same thing in women.

But I don’t. Why don’t I? Because what we like isn’t something that we choose; it’s not something that we make a conscious decision about. Our brains are hardwired to find certain things attractive, and we don’t know why. We don’t know what crossed this particular pair of wires together, resulting in liking short men or tall women. We don’t know how those neurons in our brains got so jumbled that we have foot fetishes, or are into dominance play.

Telling people that they are racist because they don’t find a thing attractive is redundant, and can be turned against you very, very easily.

For example. Do you like fat men? Short women? Bald women? Amputees? No? Well, that makes you ableist and sexist! 

Do you have any straight pairings? That makes you homophobic! And don’t even get me started on how screwed over us bi folk get when it comes to fandom shipping; we can’t win either way: because it’s not gay pairings, we’re labeled homophobic, and if it’s gay pairings, we’re labeled as attention seekers, for ‘calling ourselves bi when we’re actually gay’.

Are you starting to see where I’m going with this? You have a thing you like. I’m ambivalent about the thing, or maybe even I actively dislike the thing. Instead of accepting that, you decide to label me as racist.

Let’s say you like purple. Purple is a mixture of red and blue. You love purple, it’s your favorite color. I, however, do not like purple. I prefer orange, and believe that red should be mixed with yellow for the best results.

Am I horrible person for disagreeing with you? Am I bad because I like my red mixed with yellow instead of blue?

(Also, please bear in mind, I don’t see colors well, so this example might not be entirely accurate with the mixing, but I’m hoping your getting my point beyond that).

Let’s use another example here. In the Umbrella Academy, one of the most popular pairings is Luther and Allison. Well, how would you feel if I said that you’re racist for shipping Allison with a white man? As a minority woman, she should only be with other minorities! Therefore, she must be with Diego!

You’d say I’m nuts; clearly, Allison and Diego would be terrible for each other. They’re both very strong-willed, stubborn people with serious attitude problems. But hey, I like the Allison/Diego pairing. I think they’d go well together. I like the bad boy vibes, and Allison is strong enough to tell Diego where to shove it when he starts getting angsty and sarcastic. It could work! 

Let’s go a step further. I ship Diego and Vanya; I think they look absolutely adorable together. On an emotional level, they’re all wrong for each other, and I understand that. But physically? Hell, I dig it. I’d dig it a trench a mile deep. I don’t know why I find them to be so cute together, but I just do.

However, I logically understand that Vanya is gay -or bi, potentially, I’m sure we’ll get that hammered out sooner or later in the show. And I completely accept that character’s decision to be with Sissy. But the two of them together just don’t do it for me. I look at them as a couple and go, ‘meh’. It doesn’t evoke any feeling in me. But that one scene at the end of the last episode, where Vanya just rests her head against Diego, and after a moment, he returns the gesture? That gave me chills. And I decided right then and there, I would die with that ship. Because it made me feel good and happy, and gave me those butterflies floating in my stomach.

Do you pick your partners based off of what you think society wants you to like? I sincerely hope you don’t, and instead follow your heart. I hope you pick your partners or your ships based off of what makes you happy as a person. What makes you get those butterflies, of what gives you chills when you think of them together.

Shipping in fandom is the same. If you’re shipping people based off of what other people tell you you should like, or what you think is socially acceptable to like... You won’t get those butterflies. You won’t get those chills. You won’t get that stupid little grin when you think of the cute shenanigans your pairing gets up to. It will be wooden, mechanical, and soulless. There’s no heart in it, because you’re not shipping what you like... you’re shipping what you think you should like.

Biology doesn’t work like that. Know that whole thing where everybody kept telling gay people not to be gay? To force themselves to be with the opposite gender?

You and I know -hopefully you know, anyways -that that is absolutely stupid. Being gay isn’t a choice; it’s just something you are. As Lady Gaga so aptly put it years ago, we’re just born that way. We like what we like, and telling us to try and be different is not only pointless, but it’s hateful. It’s hurtful. But many large groups -mostly Christian, and/or conservative -insisted that you could just choose to not be gay. You could choose to like the opposite gender, and by not choosing that, you were going straight to hell. 

But this is exactly what you're trying to do with shipping. You are taking the part of the Moral Majority and Jerry Falwell here. You are the one telling people that what they like is wrong! They should just like what you like! If they don’t, they’re terrible bad awful people who should be ashamed of themselves! The Christians/conservatives called them amoral degenerates; you’re calling them hateful racists. But the end result is the same: you’re trying to shame and humiliate anyone who disagrees with you.

Now, I’m not going to make any presumptions about what you like; I don’t know you well enough for that. Maybe you dig interracial couples; maybe you dig gay couples. Maybe you like disabled couples, or dominant/submissive couples.

But whatever it is that you like, or what gets you hot and bothered? I wouldn’t dream of telling you it’s wrong. As long as you keep your IRL stuff consensual? It’s not my place to tell you what you can like. It’s not my place to tell you that your ideas of cute couples are wrong.

More and more lately, I find many fandom shippers using the idea of an ‘ism’ to try and force people to accept their pairing. Whether it’s racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, classism, ableism... Everybody can throw an ‘ism’ at people who dislike their pairings. It’s relatively easy to do, in fact. Give me any popular pairing, and I can throw an ‘ism’ at it.

Sorry I refuse to be browbeaten into saying that your pairing is more valid than mine. Sorry that I won’t let you bully me into going along with your pairing, and leaving my own by the wayside. Sorry I won’t bow to your threats of calling me mean things to force me to like your ships. Sorry I won’t just sit meekly back, and let you dictate what I’m allowed to find cute, or attractive, or sexy, or hot.

Actually, you know what? No. I’m not sorry. You can try to browbeat me. You can try to bully me. You can try to make me capitulate. You can try and make me sit quietly and not have an opinion.

But it ain’t gonna work. You misconstruing my argument, reading what you want to read in it, cherry picking your way through, or you calling me a racist, sexist, homophobic meanie head isn’t going to force me to root for your ship.

If I find a straight ship cute? I’ll ship it. If I find a gay ship cute? I’ll ship it. If I find a bi ship cute? I’ll ship it. If I find an interracial ship cute? I’ll ship it. If I find a intraracial ship cute? I’ll ship it. If I find a disabled/abled ship cute? I’ll ship it.

I will ship what I ship, and no amount of you throwing stones is going to force me to abandon my ship.

[ladyautie]

get to know me more!

@funyasm​ tagged me and I’m bored after writing my chapter, so here it is!

✨ what do you prefer to be called name wise?

My name’s Sophie. My friends call me Spencou or Spence. We met on a Role-Playing game forum where I played a character named Spencer. We’re used to call each other by our characters’ names and nicknames, most of the time. My brother calls me Sis’.

✨ when is your birthday?

15th november 1993.

✨ where do you live?

Paris, France.

✨ three things you are doing right now?

I’m watching an episode of AT4W on youtube, scrolling on Tumblr and I’m drinking a coffee.

✨ four fandoms that have piqued your interest right now?

Definitely It and especially Eddie Kaspbrak and the ship Reddie. I’m kinda obsessed right now, writing fanfic, reading fanfic, daydreaming about it and all.

I just played the Last of Us 2 and I’m currently watching a let’s play from my favorite youtubers, Mari and Stacy from Geek Remix. I’ll probably read a few fics as well.

The tv show Barry (HBO) is a definite special interest for me. I’m probably going to watch it all once again real soon and I’m planning on writing a fanfic or two in the future. I’m dying for the third season to come.

Finally, I’m probably going to be super into The Umbrella Academy once again, when the second season will be released. I’m just really into Vanya, Klaus and Allison and I can’t wait to see more of them.

✨ how is the pandemic treating you?

None of the people I know have been contaminated, so I’m lucky about that. I’m not quarantined anymore, back to work, and the transition is not easy. 

I feel like I’m more openly autistic than I used to be and that I can’t stand the rest of the world for a long period of time. I’ve experienced multiple meltdowns and shutdowns and I have real difficulties to socialize with most people or to focus on my work.

I feel incredibly naked and vulnerable whenever I’m leaving my flat without my mask on, so I think that’s definitely something I’m gonna have to work on in the future.

Leaving Paris and meeting my folks for my mother’s wedding, I found myself surrounded by people who mostly didn’t care about the virus, kissing each other on the cheek in true french fashion to say hello, hugging, not wearing a mask, not respecting any kind of social distance. 

I was quickly overwhelmed by all of that, plus the noise, and I had to isolate myself in my parents’ car, sobbing hysterically and willing to suffer in a overheated car if it meant having a bit of peace.

There are definitely going to be long-term consequences. I can only hope that my physical health will remain okay, though.

✨ song you can’t stop listening right now?

Keep On by Sasha Sloan. I just really love the lyrics and the message.

✨ recommend a movie.

Whenever I have to think of a movie to recommend, Frank by Lenny Abrahamson is the first one that comes to my mind. This movie is an obsession for me since the first time I watched it and I often find myself watching it again and again. Despite its heavy subjects, it’s definitely a comfort movie for me.

Too often, movies featuring mentally ill characters will aim for the characters to “get better”, which doesn’t mean for them to find healthy ways to cope with their issues, but usually for them to look more “neurotypical-like”, if you know what I mean. Frank  doesn’t go that way at all. On the contrary, it pushes the viewer to empathize with the main characters and to understand their point of view, their way of being.

It’s so incredibly comforting to watch a movie featuring mental illness realistic and not romanticized and to have the movie say “you’re different and you have issues, but you’ll find your tribe someday and be able to find your own happiness, even if it’s unconventional by society’s standards”.

I don’t know, I just have so much feelings about this movie. Plus the music slaps, the humor is hilarious (kudos to the random French guy who can perfectly understand English but refuses to utter a single word if it’s not in French) and the actors are truly on point (I can only salute Domnhall Gleeson, among everyone else who is also worthy of praise, because he definitely managed to make me hate his character in a way I almost never hated a character before).

Watch it!

✨ how old are you?

I’m 26 years old.

✨ school, university, occupation, other?

I used to be a librarian, but I couldn’t find a stable job in this field, so I passed an entrance examination and I’m now working in the tax administration. Yeah, not really glamorous, but it pays the bills and I’m accommodated for my disability, so it helps. 

✨ do you prefer hot or cold?

Definitely cold. When I was a kid, I used to swim in mountain lakes, at temperatures close to 13° celsius, and I still take my showers mostly cold. I can’t stand heat, I get headaches very easily when it’s sunny and I’m getting confused easily whenever it’s too hot. I recently had a nosebleed at work so intense that I found myself spitting blood (it went better once I got a fan, making the temperature bearable).

✨ name one fact others may not know about you.

I used to be allergic to my own sweat when I was around 18, until my early twenties. Whenever I was doing a mild physical effort or getting stressed out, I would get hives and itchy skin rash all over my whole freaking body, which was so exhausting that I would fall asleep immediately as soon as the rash was gone. 

It disappeared as suddenly as it appeared, without me ever doing something about it. I still don’t know why I experienced that and if I’m going to experience that ever again. I hope not.

✨ are you shy?

My autism makes social interactions complicated, but I’d say I’m mostly impaired by my social anxiety and the various traumas I’m dealing with daily.

Traumas I got after having been bullied pretty badly by kids and teachers during my school years, my stepfather being borderline abusive and different traumatic experiences, including my childhood crush dying from a ski accident when I was 15 or so (and me never being able to tell him that I loved him) and people betraying me so many times that I can’t even recall every little thing.

As a result, I find myself doubting constantly that I’m worthy of love, affection and respect and I often wonder when I’ll do or say the “wrong” thing that will cause me to lose everyone I care about. I also have a hard time knowing who I am and, as a result, allowing everyone to know who I am as well. 

I often don’t know what to say and will find myself keeping my mouth shut, even on topics I’m knowledgeable about, because I’m scared of people shutting me down, among other things. My friends make it easier for me to talk about things I like and all, but I’m still heavily doubting myself.

I try to challenge myself regularly. I’ll force myself to take part in events that are taxing or that are forcing me to perform in front of people. That’s how I found myself taking part in the casting part of the french equivalent of “American Idol” (I merely met the pre-judges, but I did manage to sing my whole song in front of them). I needed to prove to myself that I could do it.

✨ do you have any preferred pronouns?

I’m using she/her, but I don’t mind people using they/them to talk about me if they don’t want to be gender-specific.

✨ any pet peeves?

I hate how people can freely and openly be homophobic, racist, ableist, transphobic, sexist and so on, but as soon as I open my mouth to let them know that what they said/did wasn’t appropriate, I’m labelled as one of those “hysterical feminists” or a “party pooper”. s/ Sorry if your antisemitic joke isn’t making me laugh, my “dear” colleague... /s I hate whenever people infantilize me, especially my mom. She’s still keeping an eye on my bank account, despite me telling her that I didn’t want her to do so again and again. I don’t dare to block her out, because I’m scared of her emotional reaction.  I hate the ugliest parts of fandom, notably the obsession with “who’s topping / who’s bottoming” whenever there’s a gay pairing or the racism / ableism / transphobia / homophobia I’ve witnessed again and again.

I don’t dare to engage in the Last of Us 2 fandom because of that and the way some people describe the character of Abby (a very muscular woman), focusing on her physical appearance and calling her awful names (being downright transphobic when they thought that she was the transgender character that Naughty Dog announced there would be in their game). 

✨ what’s your favorite “dere” type?

I had to google it, because aside from Yandere and Tsundere, I didn’t know a thing about it. I guess you could say I’m a Dandere (someone who is quiet and asocial. They are afraid to talk, fearing that what they say will get them in trouble.). 

My favorite type is Kuudere though, when it comes to anime in particular (someone who is calm and collected on the outside, and never panics. They show little emotion, and in extreme cases are completely emotionless, but may be hiding their true emotions. They tend to be leaders who are always in charge of a situation.). 

My favorite anime character, Kiyotaka Ayanokōji from the anime Classroom of the elite, is the most extreme case I can think about. He’s completely expressionless for most of the anime, talks with a very dull voice and it’s impossible to know what he’s thinking about at all times or what’s his overall plan. His hidden depth makes him all the more fascinating. He managed to keep me interested in a mostly meh anime.

✨ rate your life 1-10. 1 being really crappy and 10 being the best you could ever be.

It’s a bit hard, but somewhere around 5 or 6? I went through tons of crap in my life but I’m still here and able to live on my own, even if my quality of life isn’t all that good. I live with nearly daily suicidal thoughts since I was a teenager and have to compose with my meltdowns and anxiety attacks as well. I feel “other” most of the time and I can’t relate to most people I’m meeting and interacting with, which can sometimes feel very lonely.

On the other hand, I have wonderful friends who are willing to put up with my trauma crap and are overall amazing to talk to and be around. I have a cat I love dearly. They’re the reason why I’m still alive to this day, giving me a reason to say fuck off to my suicidal thoughts. 

✨ what’s your main blog?

My main blog is Ladyautie and is about autism. I have another blog, reddie-4-more, focusing on the It movies and Eddie Kaspbrak and Richie Tozier.

✨ is there anything you think people need to know about you before becoming friends with you?

So, uh, don’t be weirded out by the kind of things I can tell you about my past. Even if it seems a lot, all of it is definitely true. 

For example, I was almost kidnapped when I was around 8 or 9 by a random guy, while I was camping with my father. 

My father and my paternal grandmother actually kidnapped me and my brother when I was around two and I stayed with him until the social workers determined that my mother had to raise us again because our well-being and overall life were threatened. 

Lots of events of my life seem far-fetched or out of a movie / a book or something and I had people telling me that I must be lying or that I’m over-exaggerating, something that always hurts deeply.

I’m terribly awkward and more or less openly autistic, so you’re definitely going to notice something different about me. I can’t change for you and I’m not willing to hide my traits only to make you feel more comfortable about frequenting me, so if you can’t handle my socially anxious and disabled ass, then just leave.

I need people to actually tell me what they think or feel. I’m very “first degree” and I’m pretty bad at guessing what people are thinking about. Don’t be afraid to be frank.

Finally, never, and I mean never, infantilize me. I’m a 26 years old woman. I’m not a kid.I’m fine with my friends offering to help or making sure that I’m okay or so, but never assume that I don’t understand something and don’t force your help on me if I say that I’m okay.

That’s it, those who want to take part in this exercise, don’t hesitate!

[mxadrian779]

How Not to Be an Ableist Dick.

Lame is ableist. Deal with it.

Disability metaphors abound in our culture, and they exist almost entirely as pejoratives. You see something wrong? Compare it to a disabled body or mind: Paralyzed. Lame. Crippled. Schizophrenic. Diseased. Sick. Want to launch an insult? The words are seemingly endless: Deaf. Dumb. Blind. Idiot. Moron. Imbecile. Crazy. Insane. Retard. Lunatic. Psycho. Spaz.

Lame is fucking ableist

New meanings aren’t random

At the same time, much media attention has been paid to the use of slurs such as retarded. Similarly, the stigma associated with psychiatric disabilities has left its mark on many words, rendering them insults, such as crazy and insane.

So why isn’t more attention being paid to words like lame?

In the case of physical disability, once-neutral lame now describes someone who is “inept, naive, easily fooled; spec. unskilled in the fashionable behavior of a particular group, socially inept.”

Those who use these expressions tend to try to justify their use in one of two ways.

First, disability is (in their view) actually a bad thing. As one blogger explained:

It’s not okay to call a coward a pussy, or a bad thing gay, they argue, because there’s nothing bad about having a vagina or being homosexual. But there IS something bad about not being mobile! In fact, it’s no fun at all, just totally miserable. All other things held equal, isn’t it better to be not-lame than lame?

(It goes without saying that many people with disabilities would object to having their identity hijacked as the automatic stand-in for all things bad.)

Second, it can be argued – and with some legitimacy – that some of these terms no longer generally refer to disability. Languages change. New meanings emerge from old ones.

But that’s the point: new meanings are not random. Having undergone a process linguists call semantic bleaching, lame has lost some elements of its meaning over time. While physical impairment is no longer part of its (new) meaning, my study of its use in Time Magazine since 1923 showed that it has retained the social meanings associated with disability in the 20th century: awkwardness, stupidity, femininity, lack of social graces and sophistication, and more.

Lame is fucking ableist

Everyday terminology can insult a group of people, even unintentionally. Calling someone a “schizoid,” and expressions like “that’s crazy” and “the last Avengers movie was insane” can be considered offensive to people with mental disabilities. Saying someone is a “basketball junkie” diminishes the seriousness of addiction.

What about saying “that movie was really lame”? A limping horse can be called “lame,” in the sense that it has an injury. But because “lame” can also mean “weak,” “inferior,” or “contemptible,” among Merriam-Webster’s definitions, it’s best avoided in reference to a person or their actions.

An excellent source for disability terminology is the style guide from the National Center on Disability and Journalism, which gives background, Associated Press style guidelines, and advice for its entries.

Lame is fucking ableist

Disability metaphors are abound in our culture, and they exist almost entirely as pejoratives. As Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg wrote on DisabilityandRepresentation.com, “If a culture’s language is full of pejorative metaphors about a group of people, that culture is not going to see those people as fully entitled to the same inclusion as people in a more favored group.” This handout’sprimary purpose is to serve as a reference for linguistic microaggressions and everyday, casual ableism.

Lame is fucking ableist

Why is it so difficult to see that using these words as pejoratives is just as problematic as the once-popular put-down “That’s so gay”?

Despite the reality that nearly one in five Americans has a disability, the fight to extend human dignity to people with disabilities seems an uphill battle. We live in a culture that systematically devalues individuals with disabilities. This group is disproportionately subject to discrimination, underrepresentation and criminal violation. And while these issues may seem far more significant than the problems of labels and slurs, the common language of ableism contributes to a state in which the dehumanization of people with disabilities is culturally acceptable.

Lame is fucking ableist

Lame is a common enough term that even the most “woke” websites and bloggers will use it in their regular language, articles, and posts. Every single time I see it in print or hear it thrown out in casual conversation, my stomach turns a bit. These are people who I know are otherwise politically aware, culturally sensitive, and careful with their word choice. They would never use a racist or homophobic epithet, so why do ableist words seem to get a pass?

First a quick primer on ableism: as racism is to race, ableism is discrimination against disabled people, in favor of able-bodied people. This can take the form of lack of equal opportunities, inaccessibility, word choice, bias, prejudice, and more. Ableism is stairs with no ramps, it is construction crews and delivery vans parking sideways across blue spaces, it is healthcare companies refusing to cover those with pre-existing conditions, and it is calling someone or something you don’t like “lame.”

To be completely clear, lame is a slur. There are countless others out there, but this word in particular seems to be forgiven or forgotten more than any others.

The primary dictionary definition is “having a body part and especially a limb so disabled as to impair freedom of movement.” A few definitions down, it’s defined as slang for “square, inferior, or contemptible.” Originally, this first definition was the only one. Society eventually moved on to other problematic terms such as “handicapped,” but only once “lame” started to colloquially be used to describe anything negative.

Lame is fucking ableist

While only trolls would use a word like ‘retard’, concern with ableist language extends much more widely. There was a time when lots of educated people, with no intent to offend, used words we now regard as sexist, like ‘mankind’ or the male pronoun as a universal. Some of those who used this sexist language were actually supportive of gender equality, and failed to see any connection between their words and reinforcing gender hierarchy. Today, this attitude is much less common. Those concerned with ableist language claim the cases are closely analogous: many of us unthinkingly use words that are ableist without recognizing that fact. They want to alert us to our ableism and have us change our linguistic usage.

For instance, they claim that phrases like “turn a deaf ear to” associate deafness with ignorance; that to call someone or something “lame” metaphorically is to associate walking difficulties with an unrelated (perceived) defect that reduces value; that to describe someone who acts unthinkingly as “dumb” is to inappropriately associate communication difficulties with mere foolishness.

Lame is fucking ableist

We don’t say the r-word anymore. But have you heard someone say one of these recently?

“He’s so crazy.”

“The weather is schizophrenic.”

“Our workload is insane.”

“That’s lame.”

I have, and I’m trying to stop. All the phrases use ableist language.

Ableism is the discrimination of people with disabilities. Ableist language is prejudiced words or phrases against people with disabilities. Disabilities can range from visible to invisible; similarly, ableist language can seem invisible to us (until we start paying attention to our words!) because the phrases are so ingrained in our cultural lexicon.

Lame is fucking ableist

Lame Refers to people with physical or mobility disabilities. Often used as a metaphor. Consider instead: Boring, uninteresting, monotonous, lacks excitement, uncool, out of fashion (if using metaphors); physically disabled person, person with a mobility impairment, paralyzed person (if referring to a disabled person)

Lame is fucking ableist

In the same way that a stranger should not appropriate your body for his commentary, you should not appropriate my disabled body — which is, after all, mine and not yours — for your political writing or social commentary.

A disabled body should not appear in articles about how lame that sexist movie is or how insane racism is. A disabled body should be no more available for commentary than a nondisabled one.

The core problem with using a body as a metaphor is that people actually live in bodies. We are not just paralyzed legs, or deaf ears, or blind eyes.

When we become reduced to our disabilities, others very quickly forget that there are people involved here. We are no longer seen as whole, living, breathing human beings.

Our bodies have simply been put into the service of your cause without our permission.

Lame is fucking ableist

If one of these 12 words is still in your vocabulary, it's time to reframe, rethink and reimagine your word choices.

1. "Lame"

If you're still using the word "lame," you might want to give your internal dictionary a serious update.

"Lame" was originally used in reference to people with reduced mobility due to physical disability. The word is now tossed around schoolyards and workplaces everywhere to mean "uncool" and "unappealing." Even singer-songwriter Ellie Goulding recently included the word in an activist-oriented tweet addressing misogyny in song lyrics.

For a lot of us, "lame" doesn't have that same bad-word sting many offensive terms have. But that definitely doesn't mean it's OK to use. Disability rights activists have long called for the word to phase out. We have a responsibility to respect that.

Lame is fucking ableist

Then it clicked for me. Whether or not I saw any important difference in my use of language, it was having real effects on other people, effects I might not understand. And if that was the case, which my colleague was saying it was, why not make the small change in my language that would matter quite a lot to people around me? It’s so easy. It goes a long way. It doesn’t cost me a thing, but it makes a big difference in the lives of others.

The same is true for ableist language. ‘Lame’, ‘crazy’, ‘dumb’, ‘schizo’, ‘deaf’. We throw around a lot of words whose primary purpose is to describe a mental or physiological condition. Often without thinking, we’re supporting damaging stereotypes about disabilities. But we can change this kind of language, and once we learn to catch it, it’s so easy to do.

...

We need to reframe conversations about marginalizing language to consider the actual damage it causes. Using a word like ‘lame’ as a disparaging catch-all  (which, full disclosure, is a habit I’m still working to change) means that actual lameness—the inability to walk—registers as less than non-lameness, the ability to walk. It pushes people who can’t walk into the margins of what’s considered normal and good.

Lame is fucking ableist

Besides being hurtful and harmful to people who have disabilities, the use of these filler words also decreases the effectiveness of our communication. We stop using the wide variety of words in the English language that communicate precise meanings and, likewise, understand things less precisely. Consider, for example, the difference between saying, “He’s crazy!” versus saying, “He acts in outrageous and unpredictable ways!” Or instead of saying, “That movie was lame,” explaining, “That movie was unoriginal and unenjoyable.” In truth, the world is a more exciting place when we are thinking precisely about what we actually mean, and can communicate our precise meanings to other people. And when we do, we demonstrate love and respect for our fellow human beings.

Lame is fucking ableist

What we sometimes say: “That is so lame!”

Being lame does not mean uncool. Being lame means you are physically impaired from using your legs, yet even within this context it is still an offensive and outdated term.

If a person who has use of their legs, they should not be using a word describing a physical inhibition to describe something they are not a fan of.

What we actually mean, and what we should say: Uncool, cheesy, tacky, corny.

Lame is fucking ableist

Ableist language is any word or phrase that intentionally or inadvertently targets an individual with a disability.For the most part, these words are filler, nothing more. Examples of ableist language include “crazy,” “insane,” “lame,” “dumb,” “retarded,” “blind,” “deaf,” “idiot,” “imbecile,” “invalid (noun),” “maniac,” “nuts,” “psycho,” “spaz.”

Each of these words, when used flippantly, can be extremely insulting to individuals who find themselves with physical (“lame,” “invalid,” “dumb”) or mental (“crazy,” “retarded,” “psycho”) disabilities. A full explanation of why these words are so problematic, along with alternatives that can be used can be found over at Autistic Hoya.

Lame is fucking ableist

Words like as “crazy," "lame," and "retarded," instead of “ridiculous," "pointless," and a thesaurus-full of others, stigmatizes people with disabilities. What's more, such language is often used to deride other marginalized groups.

“[H]ow the world is wired… may be invisible to those who do not have disabilities,” read the Web site for Stop Ableism Inc., a disability rights organization in Guelph, Ontario. Unless you are one of the roughly 56.7 million, or one in five, Americans who have disabilities, or know someone with a disability, you’re less likely to notice the “physical, attitudinal, or systemic” discrimination built into everyday life. Unawareness of ableism is everywhere, said Lydia Brown, a student, writer, and autism activist.

“There is a power structure that non-disabled people can ignore as a result of their privilege as able-bodied and neurotypical,” Brown told Campus Progress, “but which we as disabled people must confront for every moment of our existences.”

Lame is fucking ableist

Because it has been normalised to such an extent, most people using ableist language do so without being aware of the implication behind their words. Subtle insults, directed at minority groups, may seem harmless at first glance but such microaggressions, when accumulated over a lifetime, result in lower self-confidence, depression and higher mortality. Thus, language too can become a medium of oppression. Let’s take a look at the meaning behind certain words which are most definitely ableist but are very much part of everyday conversation.

“That joke was so lame!”

This is a commonly heard phrase. In fact, there are entire websites dedicated to ‘lame’ jokes. ‘Lame’ was originally used to refer to people unable to walk due to physical disability or neurological disorders affecting their feet. In modern day parlance, it has come to mean unoriginal, uninteresting or dull. Next time you use the word ‘lame’ to describe a film or a song, bear in mind that you are equating people who have to rely on canes or crutches with all those negative meanings.

Alternatives: Unimpressive, Boring, Tedious, Uninspiring, Tiresome, Lacklustre, Meh

Lame is fucking ableist

To understand ableism, it is imperative to recognize how society is structured to favor able people. Able privilege encompasses accessibility, language choice, low expectations, microaggressions, and lack of knowledge. All of these aspects are a part of everyday life. Everyday language like “lame”, “insane”, and “idiot” have roots in medicine and a history of discriminatory use about people with disabilities. This builds on the assumption that disability is a detriment. The language we use towards and about disabled individuals (e.g. “wheelchair bound” and “special ed’) disregards their autonomy.

Lame is fucking ableist

They spoke about ableist language and the way that influences, both consciously and subconsciously, people’s view of those with disabilities and what they are capable of doing. For those not familiar, ableist language is when a term that is associated with people with disabilities – things like the R-word, “lame,” or “crazy” – take on a negative and belittling meaning.

Lame is fucking ableist

2. "That's Lame."

Although "lame" is often used to disparage something these days, its original definition refers to the inability to walk. When you say something is lame, you equate lameness with negativity.

Lame is fucking ableist

The use of the words lame, gimp, or   retarded reinforces an underlying assumption that people who have a   disability are also lesser and worthy of scorn, which in turn reinforces the   underlying assumption that people with disabilities are inherently less than   those without disabilities.

Lame is fucking ableist.

Unintended ableism

Just as language is gendered, it can also be ableist. Ableism is simply the discrimination against anyone with a physical or mental disability. And our everyday, casual speak can unfortunately be ableist, reinforcing insensitivity and negative stereotypes.

Words like “blind”, “deaf,” “dumb,” “idiot,” “insane,” “lame,” “nuts,” and “psycho” are all ableist.

Instead of using words like these, take this opportunity to practice clearer communication. Instead of saying, “My manager is nuts if she thinks we’re going to meet that deadline,” you can say: “This deadline is unrealistic.”

Saying what you mean can prevent the use of offensive shortcuts. For some inspiration, check out the work of some great disability activists.

Lame is fucking ableist.

When you insist on using words like “crazy” or “lame” in your speech — or worse, when brands use these words in their marketing copy, which is subject to several layers of internal review — you effectively draw a straight line between people’s physical conditions or mental health issues, and that which is unfortunate and undesirable.

Lame is fucking ableist.

Don’t be an ableist dick.

[bigskydreaming]

FRIENDS is such a perfect example for why I have no patience for saying its unrealistic or unreasonable to expect too much of shows in taking progressive stances. Or providing positive representation. Or that we should be grateful for whatever they DO give us in terms of so-called progressive depictions of PoC, LGBTQ+ persons or disabled individuals.

Because it was over twenty years ago at this point, and nothing has changed. Shows still do the exact same stunts and expect applause and a cookie for their token attempts at progressive actions, while turning around and doing 100x as much to perpetuate the status quo.

As an example, take Ross’ ex-wife, Susan. She was gay, and had a girlfriend who raised her son as equal parents and with Ross co-parenting as well. Great, right? They were consistent presences throughout most of the ten seasons of the show, and even got married in one of the earlier seasons. Their wedding was the focal point of an entire episode, with rave reviews and buzz around that episode and how much it did for gay rights and to promote positivity towards LGBTQ+ people and issues. 

Again, great right? That’s a good thing, yeah? What’s the problem?

Well, nothing there. The problem is that IN ADDITION to this wedding episode and the recurring presence of Carol and Susan throughout the show.....the main characters made homophobic and transphobic jokes like EVERY DAMN EPISODE. Oh sure, I don’t think the writers thought of it that way, their own internal biases meant they wrote these jokes without a second thought and probably THOUGHT they were liberal, progressive, social conscious people and so were these characters they were writing....

But none of that changes the fact that these constant, incessant jokes at the expense of gay people and trans people and occasionally bisexuality and so on....they were still homophobic and transphobic and biphobic regardless! Carol and Susan’s partnership was treated as a punchline ten times as often as it was held up as something good and natural. Any time it came up in casual conversation and not because those characters were involved in a scene directly, it was never oh how great a couple they are or what good parents they are or anything even about THEM, it was almost always ‘lol isn’t it hilarious that Ross married a lesbian?’

And that’s not even TOUCHING the shit that was everything involving Chandler’s parents.

Like yeah, great, FRIENDS had one good, wholesome episode about a gay marriage. But I guarantee the way it dismissively and offensively references LGBTQ+ people and issues in every other way on the show, in every single season.....that made WAY more of an impact on audiences, and did far more to perpetuate and normalize such jokes and the views behind such jokes than their one token attempt to say ‘look how much we care about gay rights’ did in reverse.

But at any point in the twenty years since then, you try criticizing the show for being so blatantly and consistently homophobic and transphobic, and GUARANTEED you inevitably have people jumping all over that and pointing to Carol and Susan and their recurring appearances and their wedding episode while saying see?? SEE? How can Friends have been homophobic when look how much they did to show they care about gay people, look at this episode, everybody’s saying nice things about a gay wedding, where’s the homophobia huh? CHECKMATE.

And if you actually try arguing with that and pointing out that doesn’t negate all the other times they were offensive and used homophobic language and jokes and stereotypes.....what do you hear? ‘They did what they could, they had the studio to worry about and it was a different time back then.’ ‘These things take time, you can’t expect them to do everything perfectly, it has to start somewhere like with that wedding episode, that was a big step.’ ‘You’re never going to get perfect representation, you have to be realistic. They TRIED and that’s more than a lot of people do, doesn’t that matter?’ ’One step at a time. This was a good start.’

Any of this sound familiar? Sound like the same lines trotted out any time someone criticizes a current TV show or cartoon or movie or comic book or novel because of blatant racism or homophobia or transphobia, with defenders jumping to lift up one single episode or character or storyline and saying ‘look, see how much they care, nobody’s perfect and at least they tried and it was probably the studio/editors/publisher that wouldn’t let them do more?’

“You can’t demand more than what the studio/show/film/comic/novel was willing to give you here” is the takeaway now, same as it was twenty years ago, same as it was twenty years before that.

WHY THE FUCK NOT? Is what I wanna know.

Considering people seem more than happy to demand marginalized audiences settle for the one bone or scrap they’re thrown to pacify them while following that up with a hundred times that amount of content enabling the racist, ableist, homophobic and transphobic status quo. 

It was bullshit then, and its bullshit now. A half-hearted or hell, even an earnest attempt at doing ONE thing to challenge racism or homophobia, is not a free pass to then perpetuate those things in a dozen other ways. And its certainly not a shield against people saying THAT’S NOT ENOUGH. DO BETTER. DO MORE.

It’s about priorities, at the end of the day.

Any content creator that’s able to include some token effort at being progressive absolutely is capable of more than JUST that. It is always, ALWAYS just a matter of picking your battles, when it comes to studios, audiences, publishers, etc. That’s what it comes down to. You have to pick your battles, decide what you’re going to fight to include or how its portrayed, where you’re willing to compromise and where you’re not.

And over and over, all these arguments, all these content creators and their nominal efforts and excuses for not doing more, all it boils down to - is just like any creator, they picked their battles. What was worth fighting for in their eyes and where they were okay with cutting their losses. The answer to ‘why not more’ and ‘why not better’ is ALWAYS - because they didn’t care as much about fighting for that content as the other stuff they wanted to include, that mattered more to them.

Thing is, there are a million different elements at play in any given content. There are a million different identities or combination of identities that could be prioritized in any given content. It is literally impossible to prioritize all of them or even most of them or even 99% of them. While at the same time, its equally true that all of them DESERVE to be prioritized somewhere.

And like....because of that, its not a problem that somebody’s personal priorities are different from yours or what you’d like theirs to be. If someone’s not trying to be offensive or exclude any given identities or experiences? If the reason they only fought to include a token display of something and nothing more than that is because they personally have other things they prioritize more, that are more important to see included in their final product, for them, the creator, personally? That’s not evil. That’s not unreasonable. People are ALLOWED to have their own priorities. They’re allowed to have things they care more about fighting for than other things.

But the same has to be true in reverse.

Fans get to be equally concerned with THEIR personal priorities. Criticism isn’t censorship, a hundred, a thousand people on the internet saying ‘i hate this because it doesn’t do enough of x’ is not ‘you are a bad person because you like this because it includes y and you personally care about y a lot.’

Stop responding to people saying “I’m not satisfied by the inclusion of this one character, story, episode. I want more. People like me deserve more” with “Stop expecting more than what you’re given and settle for being happy with whatever you’re offered.”

It should NOT be that hard to instead respond with “I enjoy this thing because what it does and doesn’t prioritize lines up well with my own personal priorities, but it makes sense that you’re not content with it because your priorities are different and that’s fair and valid. You deserve content that lines up with your priorities, same as this thing currently does with mine. Its not an attack on me to hear you say that.”

[sol1056]

My ask box continues to fill up, and I have no answers for any of this. I’ve gotten comments that @dreamworksanimation is good about things like fair representation in other shows when it comes to disability, queer relationships, racial diversity, and just plain solid storytelling. Why was @voltron the exception? 

Or you can just have the questions from my asks:

I really, really wanted [Dreamworks execs] to address the situation, to tell us why VLD took that enormous shitty turn and to apologize and do us better. But I'm guessing we already know the answer (arrogant inexperienced EPs) and I think they won't do anything about it, just try to fade Voltron to the background as it's ending and focus on She-ra, if they ever decide to apologize, they're just gonna focus on the LGBT rep as if its the worst problem of their story.

You know what, I hope someone makes an extensive list of all the morally questionable messages Voltron has sent with all its characters (Shiro & Kuron everything, and Lotor as abuse victim in particular), all in detail and shove them in their faces saying, but to you it's 2 guys in love and in a healthy relationship that is wrong, instead of ableism, racism, homophobia, etc. When I think of what the kids will take from Voltron I feel sick. But queer love is the problem here, right. I’m disgusted.

Us: can we get a happy ending too like the het people and couples in the show?

VLD: no, not a happy or even semi-happy ending, you'll get a miserable ending but get this, we're going to write the last survivor of the 4 queer characters we killed off to be totally on board with this. We'll write him and animate him as if he's happy and got resolution, growth, and catharsis and not as if he got demoted, sidelined, isolated, discarded by his family, worst of all by Keith. We'll say a monster like him can’t be a paladin.

Let’s also go back to talking about how they not only made Lotor, a victim of child abuse not to mention biracial character who grew up with everything against him: suddenly evil, be the same as his abusive "father" and "mother" (who even after remembering who he is pulled the same crap as before), took every happiness away from him and had the nerve to mock his abuse in S7?! As a child abuse survivor I'M HORRIFIED.

The messages in the Shiro/Adam scene is disgusting, this is such a difficult subject, even for adults show with plenty time to explore and be fair to both characters while being explicit about it all. I was worried: in a kids’ show? how can they write this in a way they'll get it? With barely time for it? but look what they wrote, Adam gave an ultimatum instead of support and died, then they blamed the disabled guy for everything. Message: you’re gay so your relationship and your life are worthless, you'll be miserable and alone.

For a team that is all about working together, voltron members after 7 seasons still don't feel like a family and more like colleagues from work. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It feels odd knowing that they weren't actually battling homophobic higher ups. It feels more tactical and greedy for social justice points than out of genuine desire to showcase diversity. Is it coincidence that the character they dislike the most is the one selected for this honor? As a lesbian fan i'm skeptical and angry and refuse to watch anything else by these two.

People keep trying to excuse this stuff with "Voltron is a kids' show", but you know what? There are gay kids out there. There are disabled kids out there. Much as we may wish it otherwise, there are kids out there experiencing trauma. Do we REALLY want to teach those little kids that they are broken and tainted forever and nothing good is waiting for them in the world from here on out? People need to know how damaging it is to have ZERO stories in media showing realistic healing of trauma.

The lady who betrayed them got a proper send off scene even tho she send Adam & the others like pigs to slaughter & betrayed them & caused them all to almost lose and die. Got screentime & some characterization. But sure why respect Adam that way too. I will never forget the dread I had for him when I saw he was with the fighters who were sent to die, then watched them one by one lose their lives until he too, was killed. I still feel sick thinking about it. We never even learned his last name.

I know it's been a while but I'm not over how they treated Lotor in s6. I'm from a broken and dysfunctional home and this show I watch for escapism told me I'm doomed to repeat the same mistakes of my parents, end up just like them. ... Are they even aware of the messages they send to their audience? Not all of us had good childhood like Allura.

From a chronically ill perspective, I felt downright insulted by the choice they made to give Shiro a degenerative illness. The idea of a chronically ill hero is cool but they pull the cure narrative, they don't give him a real illness, and it's just used for cheap irrelevant drama. Plus the whole "Has to choose between loved ones and goals" thing was pretty insensitive, we're already expected to sacrifice so much as ill people so the reinforcement of that was unpleasant to watch and read meta on.

Even if everyone was white cishet abled guy the messages sent to kids were awful: One who fought to carve his own path was forced to become someone else, one who suffered and fought till the end was told he’s a monster that can’t be a paladin, the insecure one will never be worthy as himself and he'll always be someone else’s replacement, one who survived genocide and suffered loss upon loss until reduced to nothing, one who suffered by his parents’ hand became like them, the whole Kuron thing. You cant brush off all THAT.

going into the new semester with the horrible messages of s7 on my mind...i’m lethargic. i have been since the “retired paladin” interview. it was bad for me to balance my mental health on the state of a fictional character, but it was really effective. Until that awful message that disabled people are helpless in controlling their own lives. I’m trying to disconnect and thrive anyway, out of spite against ableism if nothing else.

I had this horrible realization: you know how Shiro is a victim of abuse and him getting the Black Lion was him regaining the control the lack of he suffered in his capture? I think they gave him the illness and handwaved it with the clone, so as to argue for his removal from the Black Lion. They claim that the reason he wanted control was the illness and not the victimization in the Galra hands. They're essentially erasing his trauma.

Writers: so we'll write endearing multidimensional characters with many layers, we'll have them subvert stereotypes, especially those that characters like them usually are written with, ie. Keith isn't a loner nor is he angry just 'cause, but a lonely abandoned kid with trust issues due to his mom leaving him, thus has poor emotional control and anger management, struggles to connect and open up, he is the one whose arc embodies the found family theme more than anyone. 

EPs: nah we want stereotypes loool

We talk about Shiro and all the ableism in his story but we don't talk nearly enough about how horrifying the message is that Keith is the one to take it all from him and kick him aside. Keith chose to discard Shiro because he's broken and useless, so he can take his place. I've been through things they both have and I find all that horrifying. S7 sent terrible messages to kids watching.

They had the chance to let Shiro overcome and be a hero. To defeat his own abuser (Sendak) except Keith takes over everything and fixes everything for him while he lies helpless on the ground without a new arm yet. They had the budget. The animation. They could have empowered Shiro. They saw how many people saw themselves in Shiro's struggle. They must have seen the concerns. And they actively chose to go against that.

The Bury Your Gays trope is even worse this season when you consider the heavy lesbian subtext with Lotor's former generals who get blown up on screen. And naturally, it's the one with a crush on Keith who turns good and survives.

Was there a minority that hasn't been screwed over? Bury Your gays was merely the last shocking straw, because the whole season was chockful of terrible messages and proved they would never treat their characters right and address stuff from before. Homophobia, racism, ableism, sexism, mocking of abuse, excusing abandonment & so on.

I’m adding my voice because I'm so, so tired. None of the characters i see on screen are the characters we got to know in s1/2. The character i most related to was beaten down out of spite for 4 seasons and now may as well be a cardboard cutout. DW and the EPs don't seem to give a single shit about how badly this season has affected people. i don't know whether to jump ship or spit fire over everything. i'm just... exhausted.

I want a transparent statement & apology from DreamWorks. I want to know THEIR stance & role in this, ALL the events that ended up with us getting a show that is not only homophobic but also ableist, racist, mocks child abuse and so much more. I want them to acknowledge & explain why they allowed the marketing team to bait fans with ship content in their videos, thumbnails and even that EP interview about shipping. I want to know who and why allowed the show to to take a worse direction in recent seasons.

I have no answers for any of this, @dreamworksanimation. If there are any explanations, any reassurances that you’ll work hard to prevent any repeat, you need to say so. The longer you’re silent, the more it looks like you’re fine with the story and all its horrific messages. Are you?

[stardustpinkart]

Not here to hate, just here as someone who genuinely wants to show "this is more harmful than you might realize." Please, just hear me out.

You can't separate Harry Potter from the views of the creator. She portrayed ending slavery as something to ridicule people for. Her goblins are awful caricatures of Jewish people. A lot of elements are based off racist, transphobic, and homophobic stereotypes. She excused child abuse in the books. She claims that autistic people can't communicate that they're trans, and that therefore trans people are ableist and we need to protect poor little autistic people from them (which is very very ableist.)

Supporting her and her media funds her, and she funds transphobic policies in the UK.

If you can ignore ALL of that and still enjoy Harry Potter, then in the most respectful way I can say this, you cannot call yourself an ally to trans folks, gay folks, people of color, or autistic and disabled people.

That last bit isn't necessarily directed at you, by the way, because again I understand if it just doesn't set in how damaging it is. I only wanted to make sure you at least had a chance to understand, and if you really don't want to, then that's not exactly my business anymore.

Just something you might want to consider, yeah?

I'm not sure about excusing child abuse, as, this is a a common theme in children's books? Kids often on crappy homes and then escaping to something better in the end? "James and the Giant peach", "The Willoughbys" "A Little Princess" "Huck Finn". Even kids books written now often use this trope. I'm not sure Harry Potter is really that different? Though if she really Is deliberately glamorizing abuse, shame on her to stay the least. Other elements have not aged well certainly and seem a product of the time(doesn't make em okay but). Some of it seems to be people acting suddenly “Woke” and having an issue with parts of the story they dident have before? Yes some of it is no doubt bad but others people I think seeing what they want to, mostly the child abuse part(as said this is an old trope often used in books, it does not mean its being automatically shown as okay?)

I do think some stuff is taken out of context cuz it's been revealed she's so horrible, rather than hidden in plain sight? In the old days for example people would compare innocent images and comics vooks to sexual analogy? (A girraffe in a cage was supposedly a symbol for sexual intercourse for example). On the other hand maybe it is, maybe she was comparing all this stuff to her own views in a sneaky round about way. Alot of stuff is not doubt a geniune reason to be angry(she openly admits herself to being anti trans),

It is unfortunate about everything else but a lot of authors, actors, etc I like from old times had similar "problems" . I suppose people are just more vocal about it these days, which is stupid of them. I was not aware about the autism thing I admit which makes me sad to hear as I have that myself in the form of Aspergers. I don't need someone making my decisions for me or "protecting" my feeble little mind. I do consider myself an ally to people who are different as I don't see a reason to hate them, and knowing what it's like to live as one aspect myself, but, I can't change your option of me either, in the most respectful way back.

From what I understand there are people in all those area, including trans, who are still fans of the series, but hate the author rightfully for her hated views?

Love the thing, or make it better, but hate the creator. I think the best way to separate is people often writing better story's than the original, taking out or adressing those more harmful parts, personally. I wish, like somehow people could use HP, like charity zones and stuff, and earn money towards supporting the very organizations she's donating against?(She oughtent be allowed to do that, I cannot condone ANYONE donating to hate groups.)That'd be a nice way to stick it to her. Heh if HP were pd they could do that easily, put the characters on rainbow flags, pride buttons. Some people do that now with there artwork or create characters that are transom disabled, etc.

In fact some people have even sold old merchandise to pay towards trans surgery, binders, etc. That seems a good way to stick a middle finger to the bitch.

[tellthemeerkatsitsfine]

Here’s the thing. I’ve been accused of being a feminist killjoy. Someone who can’t take a joke and therefore ruins everything, at least a bit. I could really not be farther from that. There are feminist killjoys out there who I enormously respect, and I feel guilty because I’ve let them down. I want to be the kind of person who is perfect when it comes it to not finding jokes funny if they’re shitty and hurt marginalized people. But I’m not perfect.

My lines are, and always have been, where the humour comes from and whether the person means it. Both criteria are self-explanatory. Does the humour come from something actually funny? Or does it just come from a [sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic] idea? Plenty of jokes are about gay people or trans people or PoC or disabled people or women, and still have a funny punchline. Just not the ones where the entire punchline revolves around saying, “ha ha, this person is not a straight white cis abled male person, and that in itself is funny.” Jokes like that are not just "too offensive to be funny". They're just... not funny. I don't find it funny if someone makes a joke and the entire joke is "I think that woman has a penis", because I don't think the existence of trans women is inherently funny.

Anyone I’ve ever truly “canceled” (or, more likely, genuinely held something against them but gone on working with them if I know them in real life or watching them on TV if they're a celebrity anyway, because I'm not nearly enough of a proper feminist killjoy) has been because of something they said and/or did when they were not kidding. Something they did in real life, something they said when they clearly meant it. I give plenty of passes to people who say offensive things when they’re kidding. Sometimes I think I give too many passes to people like that.

And still, so many fucking people are terrible. I’m not just talking celebrities here. I’m talking about real life (also celebrities though). One would think that “if you’re kidding you get a free pass, I’ll only hold things against you if you do it for real or say it seriously” would mean a lot of people would be okay. But they’re not. I can have those criteria and still find a lot of people horrible. I’m not a fucking feminist killjoy. The actual feminist killjoys would be disappointed in me for not being nearly radical enough.

That is the difference though. That’s why I can love Frankie Boyle despite all his transphobic jokes, because the punchline is usually that our society (and its views on trans people) is fucked up. But to be fair, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes the punchline is just something bigoted. And the thing is that I can hear a straight up transphobic joke out of him, take it alongside everything he's said when he's not kidding, and still like the guy.

It's because I’ve seen enough of what Frankie does in the real world to know he seems like a decent person when he's not joking. Like how he always has a decent number of female panelists on his New World Order show (I haven’t gotten to watching that show yet, but it’s on my list and I did see that one article that broke down panel shows by gender and Frankie’s was one of the very few with a genuinely good male/female ratio) and protested for the rights of people in Guantanamo Bay. Whereas Jimmy Carr could make the exact same joke (often literally the same joke, since those two have written together) and coming from him it sounds less okay because the only thing I know for sure he’s done as a “real person” is not pay taxes.

Maybe that’s not fair. I get the argument that that's indefensibly hypocritical. Especially since I realize that most people - celebrities and real people - are just as shitty as the people who’ve already been exposed as terrible, and it’ll just take a little time before their terrible things become public knowledge. I know. But the fact is that when judging people, (celebrities and people I know in real life), I do look at what we know of things they actually do and things they say when they're not joking. If those things are decent, I'll forgive a lot of jokes, even jokes where the punchline is just, "ha ha, this person is not a straight white cis abled male person, and that in itself is funny."

Was this whole post just written as an elaborate way for me to justify why I really like Frankie Boyle but dislike other comedians for making “jokes” that are actually just bigotry said in a comedy context, even though Frankie has probably said worse than what they’ve said? Yeah, maybe. To be honest I started this post without really knowing where it was going and now that I’m here I’m realizing that’s probably exactly where it was always going.

I just know you can have someone like John Cleese who’s funny as hell when he’s kidding but then will write a whole non-joking article about how PC minorities are ruining everything. And Frankie Boyle will write posts when he’s not kidding about how black lives do in fact matter. Even if those two people are equally offensive when they’re joking, I’m just too busy objecting to the John Cleese type of assholes who are like that when they’re not kidding to object to people who make some not great jokes sometimes (and I mean “not great” in the sense of “offensive” but also just “not funny” - Frankie just saying he thinks Serena Williams has a penis is just not clever or funny because trans women are just part of life and not an inherently hilarious concept) but are quite cool when they’re being serious.

Even saying I will not hold jokes like that against people as long as they're kidding, I still find plenty of people terrible. I'm not a feminist killjoy. The bar is just really low and people still regularly fail to get over it.

[neogender]

Lame is not ableist. It’s become slang for something that sucks. No one has used the word to describe someone who has a physical disability for a very long time in popular culture. You’re looking for things to squawk about.

Disability metaphors abound in our culture, and they exist almost entirely as pejoratives. You see something wrong? Compare it to a disabled body or mind: Paralyzed. Lame. Crippled. Schizophrenic. Diseased. Sick. Want to launch an insult? The words are seemingly endless: Deaf. Dumb. Blind. Idiot. Moron. Imbecile. Crazy. Insane. Retard. Lunatic. Psycho. Spaz.

Lame is fucking ableist

New meanings aren’t random

At the same time, much media attention has been paid to the use of slurs such as retarded. Similarly, the stigma associated with psychiatric disabilities has left its mark on many words, rendering them insults, such as crazy and insane.

So why isn’t more attention being paid to words like lame?

In the case of physical disability, once-neutral lame now describes someone who is “inept, naive, easily fooled; spec. unskilled in the fashionable behavior of a particular group, socially inept.”

Those who use these expressions tend to try to justify their use in one of two ways.

First, disability is (in their view) actually a bad thing. As one blogger explained:

It’s not okay to call a coward a pussy, or a bad thing gay, they argue, because there’s nothing bad about having a vagina or being homosexual. But there IS something bad about not being mobile! In fact, it’s no fun at all, just totally miserable. All other things held equal, isn’t it better to be not-lame than lame?

(It goes without saying that many people with disabilities would object to having their identity hijacked as the automatic stand-in for all things bad.)

Second, it can be argued – and with some legitimacy – that some of these terms no longer generally refer to disability. Languages change. New meanings emerge from old ones.

But that’s the point: new meanings are not random. Having undergone a process linguists call semantic bleaching, lame has lost some elements of its meaning over time. While physical impairment is no longer part of its (new) meaning, my study of its use in Time Magazine since 1923 showed that it has retained the social meanings associated with disability in the 20th century: awkwardness, stupidity, femininity, lack of social graces and sophistication, and more.

Lame is fucking ableist

Everyday terminology can insult a group of people, even unintentionally. Calling someone a “schizoid,” and expressions like “that’s crazy” and “the last Avengers movie was insane” can be considered offensive to people with mental disabilities. Saying someone is a “basketball junkie” diminishes the seriousness of addiction.

What about saying “that movie was really lame”? A limping horse can be called “lame,” in the sense that it has an injury. But because “lame” can also mean “weak,” “inferior,” or “contemptible,” among Merriam-Webster’s definitions, it’s best avoided in reference to a person or their actions.

An excellent source for disability terminology is the style guide from the National Center on Disability and Journalism, which gives background, Associated Press style guidelines, and advice for its entries.

Lame is fucking ableist

Disability metaphors are abound in our culture, and they exist almost entirely as pejoratives. As Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg wrote on DisabilityandRepresentation.com, “If a culture’s language is full of pejorative metaphors about a group of people, that culture is not going to see those people as fully entitled to the same inclusion as people in a more favored group.” This handout’sprimary purpose is to serve as a reference for linguistic microaggressions and everyday, casual ableism.

Lame is fucking ableist

Why is it so difficult to see that using these words as pejoratives is just as problematic as the once-popular put-down “That’s so gay”?

Despite the reality that nearly one in five Americans has a disability, the fight to extend human dignity to people with disabilities seems an uphill battle. We live in a culture that systematically devalues individuals with disabilities. This group is disproportionately subject to discrimination, underrepresentation and criminal violation. And while these issues may seem far more significant than the problems of labels and slurs, the common language of ableism contributes to a state in which the dehumanization of people with disabilities is culturally acceptable.

Lame is fucking ableist

Lame is a common enough term that even the most “woke” websites and bloggers will use it in their regular language, articles, and posts. Every single time I see it in print or hear it thrown out in casual conversation, my stomach turns a bit. These are people who I know are otherwise politically aware, culturally sensitive, and careful with their word choice. They would never use a racist or homophobic epithet, so why do ableist words seem to get a pass?

First a quick primer on ableism: as racism is to race, ableism is discrimination against disabled people, in favor of able-bodied people. This can take the form of lack of equal opportunities, inaccessibility, word choice, bias, prejudice, and more. Ableism is stairs with no ramps, it is construction crews and delivery vans parking sideways across blue spaces, it is healthcare companies refusing to cover those with pre-existing conditions, and it is calling someone or something you don’t like “lame.”

To be completely clear, lame is a slur. There are countless others out there, but this word in particular seems to be forgiven or forgotten more than any others.

The primary dictionary definition is “having a body part and especially a limb so disabled as to impair freedom of movement.” A few definitions down, it’s defined as slang for “square, inferior, or contemptible.” Originally, this first definition was the only one. Society eventually moved on to other problematic terms such as “handicapped,” but only once “lame” started to colloquially be used to describe anything negative.

Lame is fucking ableist

While only trolls would use a word like ‘retard’, concern with ableist language extends much more widely. There was a time when lots of educated people, with no intent to offend, used words we now regard as sexist, like ‘mankind’ or the male pronoun as a universal. Some of those who used this sexist language were actually supportive of gender equality, and failed to see any connection between their words and reinforcing gender hierarchy. Today, this attitude is much less common. Those concerned with ableist language claim the cases are closely analogous: many of us unthinkingly use words that are ableist without recognizing that fact. They want to alert us to our ableism and have us change our linguistic usage.

For instance, they claim that phrases like “turn a deaf ear to” associate deafness with ignorance; that to call someone or something “lame” metaphorically is to associate walking difficulties with an unrelated (perceived) defect that reduces value; that to describe someone who acts unthinkingly as “dumb” is to inappropriately associate communication difficulties with mere foolishness.

Lame is fucking ableist

We don’t say the r-word anymore. But have you heard someone say one of these recently?

“He’s so crazy.”

“The weather is schizophrenic.”

“Our workload is insane.”

“That’s lame.”

I have, and I’m trying to stop. All the phrases use ableist language.

Ableism is the discrimination of people with disabilities. Ableist language is prejudiced words or phrases against people with disabilities. Disabilities can range from visible to invisible; similarly, ableist language can seem invisible to us (until we start paying attention to our words!) because the phrases are so ingrained in our cultural lexicon.

Lame is fucking ableist

Lame Refers to people with physical or mobility disabilities. Often used as a metaphor. Consider instead: Boring, uninteresting, monotonous, lacks excitement, uncool, out of fashion (if using metaphors); physically disabled person, person with a mobility impairment, paralyzed person (if referring to a disabled person)

Lame is fucking ableist

In the same way that a stranger should not appropriate your body for his commentary, you should not appropriate my disabled body — which is, after all, mine and not yours — for your political writing or social commentary. 

A disabled body should not appear in articles about how lame that sexist movie is or how insane racism is. A disabled body should be no more available for commentary than a nondisabled one.

The core problem with using a body as a metaphor is that people actually live in bodies. We are not just paralyzed legs, or deaf ears, or blind eyes.

When we become reduced to our disabilities, others very quickly forget that there are people involved here. We are no longer seen as whole, living, breathing human beings.

Our bodies have simply been put into the service of your cause without our permission.

Lame is fucking ableist

If one of these 12 words is still in your vocabulary, it's time to reframe, rethink and reimagine your word choices.

1. "Lame"

If you're still using the word "lame," you might want to give your internal dictionary a serious update.

"Lame" was originally used in reference to people with reduced mobility due to physical disability. The word is now tossed around schoolyards and workplaces everywhere to mean "uncool" and "unappealing." Even singer-songwriter Ellie Goulding recently included the word in an activist-oriented tweet addressing misogyny in song lyrics.

For a lot of us, "lame" doesn't have that same bad-word sting many offensive terms have. But that definitely doesn't mean it's OK to use. Disability rights activists have long called for the word to phase out. We have a responsibility to respect that.

Lame is fucking ableist

Then it clicked for me. Whether or not I saw any important difference in my use of language, it was having real effects on other people, effects I might not understand. And if that was the case, which my colleague was saying it was, why not make the small change in my language that would matter quite a lot to people around me? It’s so easy. It goes a long way. It doesn’t cost me a thing, but it makes a big difference in the lives of others.

The same is true for ableist language. ‘Lame’, ‘crazy’, ‘dumb’, ‘schizo’, ‘deaf’. We throw around a lot of words whose primary purpose is to describe a mental or physiological condition. Often without thinking, we’re supporting damaging stereotypes about disabilities. But we can change this kind of language, and once we learn to catch it, it’s so easy to do.

...

We need to reframe conversations about marginalizing language to consider the actual damage it causes. Using a word like ‘lame’ as a disparaging catch-all  (which, full disclosure, is a habit I’m still working to change) means that actual lameness—the inability to walk—registers as less than non-lameness, the ability to walk. It pushes people who can’t walk into the margins of what’s considered normal and good.

Lame is fucking ableist

Besides being hurtful and harmful to people who have disabilities, the use of these filler words also decreases the effectiveness of our communication. We stop using the wide variety of words in the English language that communicate precise meanings and, likewise, understand things less precisely. Consider, for example, the difference between saying, “He’s crazy!” versus saying, “He acts in outrageous and unpredictable ways!” Or instead of saying, “That movie was lame,” explaining, “That movie was unoriginal and unenjoyable.” In truth, the world is a more exciting place when we are thinking precisely about what we actually mean, and can communicate our precise meanings to other people. And when we do, we demonstrate love and respect for our fellow human beings.

Lame is fucking ableist

What we sometimes say: “That is so lame!”

Being lame does not mean uncool. Being lame means you are physically impaired from using your legs, yet even within this context it is still an offensive and outdated term.

If a person who has use of their legs, they should not be using a word describing a physical inhibition to describe something they are not a fan of.

What we actually mean, and what we should say: Uncool, cheesy, tacky, corny.

Lame is fucking ableist

Ableist language is any word or phrase that intentionally or inadvertently targets an individual with a disability.For the most part, these words are filler, nothing more. Examples of ableist language include “crazy,” “insane,” “lame,” “dumb,” “retarded,” “blind,” “deaf,” “idiot,” “imbecile,” “invalid (noun),” “maniac,” “nuts,” “psycho,” “spaz.”

Each of these words, when used flippantly, can be extremely insulting to individuals who find themselves with physical (“lame,” “invalid,” “dumb”) or mental (“crazy,” “retarded,” “psycho”) disabilities. A full explanation of why these words are so problematic, along with alternatives that can be used can be found over at Autistic Hoya.

Lame is fucking ableist

Words like as “crazy," "lame," and "retarded," instead of “ridiculous," "pointless," and a thesaurus-full of others, stigmatizes people with disabilities. What's more, such language is often used to deride other marginalized groups.

“[H]ow the world is wired… may be invisible to those who do not have disabilities,” read the Web site for Stop Ableism Inc., a disability rights organization in Guelph, Ontario. Unless you are one of the roughly 56.7 million, or one in five, Americans who have disabilities, or know someone with a disability, you’re less likely to notice the “physical, attitudinal, or systemic” discrimination built into everyday life. Unawareness of ableism is everywhere, said Lydia Brown, a student, writer, and autism activist.

“There is a power structure that non-disabled people can ignore as a result of their privilege as able-bodied and neurotypical,” Brown told Campus Progress, “but which we as disabled people must confront for every moment of our existences.”

Lame is fucking ableist

Because it has been normalised to such an extent, most people using ableist language do so without being aware of the implication behind their words. Subtle insults, directed at minority groups, may seem harmless at first glance but such microaggressions, when accumulated over a lifetime, result in lower self-confidence, depression and higher mortality. Thus, language too can become a medium of oppression. Let’s take a look at the meaning behind certain words which are most definitely ableist but are very much part of everyday conversation.

“That joke was so lame!”

This is a commonly heard phrase. In fact, there are entire websites dedicated to ‘lame’ jokes. ‘Lame’ was originally used to refer to people unable to walk due to physical disability or neurological disorders affecting their feet. In modern day parlance, it has come to mean unoriginal, uninteresting or dull. Next time you use the word ‘lame’ to describe a film or a song, bear in mind that you are equating people who have to rely on canes or crutches with all those negative meanings.

Alternatives: Unimpressive, Boring, Tedious, Uninspiring, Tiresome, Lacklustre, Meh

Lame is fucking ableist

To understand ableism, it is imperative to recognize how society is structured to favor able people. Able privilege encompasses accessibility, language choice, low expectations, microaggressions, and lack of knowledge. All of these aspects are a part of everyday life. Everyday language like “lame”, “insane”, and “idiot” have roots in medicine and a history of discriminatory use about people with disabilities. This builds on the assumption that disability is a detriment. The language we use towards and about disabled individuals (e.g. “wheelchair bound” and “special ed’) disregards their autonomy.

Lame is fucking ableist

They spoke about ableist language and the way that influences, both consciously and subconsciously, people’s view of those with disabilities and what they are capable of doing. For those not familiar, ableist language is when a term that is associated with people with disabilities – things like the R-word, “lame,” or “crazy” – take on a negative and belittling meaning.

Lame is fucking ableist

2. "That's Lame." 

Although "lame" is often used to disparage something these days, its original definition refers to the inability to walk. When you say something is lame, you equate lameness with negativity.

Lame is fucking ableist

The use of the words lame, gimp, or   retarded reinforces an underlying assumption that people who have a   disability are also lesser and worthy of scorn, which in turn reinforces the   underlying assumption that people with disabilities are inherently less than   those without disabilities.

Lame is fucking ableist.

Unintended ableism

Just as language is gendered, it can also be ableist. Ableism is simply the discrimination against anyone with a physical or mental disability. And our everyday, casual speak can unfortunately be ableist, reinforcing insensitivity and negative stereotypes.

Words like “blind”, “deaf,” “dumb,” “idiot,” “insane,” “lame,” “nuts,” and “psycho” are all ableist.

Instead of using words like these, take this opportunity to practice clearer communication. Instead of saying, “My manager is nuts if she thinks we’re going to meet that deadline,” you can say: “This deadline is unrealistic.”

Saying what you mean can prevent the use of offensive shortcuts. For some inspiration, check out the work of some great disability activists.

Lame is fucking ableist.

When you insist on using words like “crazy” or “lame” in your speech — or worse, when brands use these words in their marketing copy, which is subject to several layers of internal review — you effectively draw a straight line between people’s physical conditions or mental health issues, and that which is unfortunate and undesirable.

Lame is fucking ableist.

Don’t be an ableist dick.