The Judgment about “What Counts” as Sexual Assault

This post goes into detail of an instance of non-rape sexual assault in the first paragraph. 

———-

In high school, one semester, a girl in gym class kept stroking my legs – well above my shins. She sat in the bleachers below me. I told her to stop, several times: it was uncomfortable and I hated and still hate being touched. She cooed at me and mocked my discomfort. I told the gym teacher, and he talked to her, but it didn’t stop. I resorted to lashing out with my legs in the general direction of her face. Finally, I started skipping gym class often that semester.  

I didn’t realize it was sexual assault with the probable intent to do worse until this year. So I never told anyone else at the time, though I don’t know if that would have helped anyway. I thought sexual assault only happened how it did on Law and Order: SVU, which I had caught episodes of in passing. No one ever told me otherwise. Adults in my life told me to carry pepper spray and not walk alone in the dark. They never told me to think about people I was at least vaguely acquaintances with. They never told me what to do if it happened. 

It seems that people, particularly autistic people like myself, rarely get taught about boundaries or consent: indeed, disabled people are often not even taught sex-ed or how to recognize abuse. To complicate matters, many autistic people have been through Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA). Its methods violate children’s boundaries and bodily control, and leaves them vulnerable to more abuse in the future.

There is also a general perception around sexual assaults that say they’re not “bad enough” or don’t “count,” from all kinds of people. As if it is easy to judge what it is and isn’t sexual assault when you are not the person who was assaulted. It happens to people who have been raped, groped, touched, and/or assaulted in any way. For people who have been groped/touched, it’s that it wasn’t rape, and for people who have been raped, it often is still not seen as a rape. Very few assaults “count.” For disabled people in particular, some reasons include: “you should be grateful someone wanted to do it to you,” and in the case of some disability types, “the person didn’t understand or care it was happening, so it’s not a big deal.”

When people decide they can say what counts as “enough…” That’s not helping anyone be taken seriously when they report/tell people about sex crimes and assaults. Numerous groups of people already have trouble reporting or being believed about assaults. For instance, many disabled people receive direct support from service providers or family members. When these people assault them, it is harder to leave or report assaults. And it helps perpetrators get away assault and makes it more socially acceptable because it’s not “bad enough.”

People who have been assaulted are told it’s not “bad enough” and they should not have too many feelings, or that they don’t have enough feelings so it’s not “bad enough.” And of course, the perpetrators’ feelings are taken more heavily into account. As Rabbi Ruti Regan notes in this piece, “Victims are pressured to disregard their own feelings in order to help perpetrators feel better about themselves.”

If you are: Stop saying we should suck up our feelings because it’s not “bad enough” and it doesn’t “count” and “they have to live with it too”  and …

Stop saying it’s not “bad enough.”

———–

It is important to note that Me Too appears to have been started some time before now by a Black woman, Tarana Burke, when credit is going elsewhere.

Advertisements

Carrie Buck’s letters, and badly written narratives about them

Carrie Buck was the institutionalized plaintiff of the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell. In a case rigged against her, the Supreme Court upheld a 1924 sterilization law. The Virginia institution sterilized her, then later “paroled” her: they sent her to do poorly-paid housework for local families. For any arbitrary reason, the Colony could re-confine her. She repeatedly pressed for a full discharge, and eventually won it. These facts are not in dispute.

Dr. Paul A. Lombardo, an academic scholar on Buck v. Bell, writes about these facts in a recent Undark Magazine article. He presents some letters written by Buck during her “parole” and post-discharge period as an untold story. It is a disingenuous claim to say he is presenting a new angle on an untold story.

Buck’s story has been told many, many times, by journalists, historians, a film in 1994, and an upcoming film starring Dakota Johnson. And her letters are not undiscovered, her thoughts not wholly unknown: The letters have been around for years, in the state library of Virginia, and excerpted in journal articles and books. Yet he writes in the article: “We also now know that Buck left her own record.” Buck’s story is albeit being told in flawed ways:  the narrative of her being “mentally normal” as the reason it was wrong to sterilize her. It is a narrative that journalists and scholars have done little to correct, including Lombardo. In fact, he uses these letters to promote that narrative in his article.

And it is true that they have not been publicized in Internet articles such as Lombardo’s (that I could find). But to say that Buck’s thoughts have never been known before, to say that we just now know “Buck left her own record,” is to say that we did not know before that Buck had agency.  To use Buck’s letters to promote a narrative that fails to acknowledge that eugenicists used disability, real or not, as a reason to sterilize people – is also wrong. To use Buck’s letters as proof of “not disabled” meaning she shouldn’t have been sterilized is wrong. (Also, disabled people are often denied agency in a number of ways.)

It is not only insulting to disabled people, but it is also insulting to Carrie Buck and what she went through. Carrie Buck was sterilized under a government law by people who used public fear of disability and “defectiveness” to do it. It was not for people to claim “not disabled” was the one quality that made her sterilization wrong. It was not for people to deny her agency.

Autistic community issues: “Gatekeeping words” edition

*Update: The autism ask blog has posted a well-worded apology after taking the time to consider many of our thoughts and feelings on the matter.

Tumblr folks: This is an expanded version of my other post.

There has been (another) recent kerfluffle regarding language (this instance is on Tumblr). Specifically, people are gatekeeping the term “special interest”. An autistic person decided that an ADHD blogger who manages a blog for ADHDers was incorrectly using the term special interest due to her being non-autistic. Despite her providing evidence that it is not autism-exclusive, the person went to an autism ask blog. There, they were told the term is autism-exclusive. The autism ask blog is wrong.

With that context: I am an autistic person with ADHD, and I have a request. Could you stop telling me that I have to use two different words to describe the same experience I have that I have no idea which “diagnosis” it comes from? (By the way, brains are not partitioned like that, so my neurology is affected by both, sometimes in very interchangeable ways that you don’t know which one is which!)

And the autistic community, as one blogger​ points out here– has a pretty long history, and we haven’t been this exclusionary with words from the start. I have put together and managed submissions for some of that history at ourautistichistory​ (Autistic History Month). And some of it is probably lost as domain names expired or the list servs went defunct. But the moderator of the actuallyadhd​ blog, who has ADHD, has been involved with list servs and later platforms of the autistic community since 1994. She is an autistic cousin, which is a decades-old term that refers to someone “who is not NT, is not quite autistic, but is recognizably “autistic-like” particularly in terms of communication and social characteristics.”

To ignore that fact, along with the first blogger’s note that these kinds of words have not been considered exclusive to the autistic community from the start – which is roughly three decades ago – is negligent. A community should know its history, and we need to know our history to work for change. 

And it tells people that we are not a community that welcomes people unless they share our specific neurotype. It tells many people who are wondering if they are autistic that we are a community who will not welcome them. That may make them afraid to approach us, or learn more about autistic community and autistic culture. It tells people we are a community who is willing to gatekeep, and that is not what I want people to think of the community I love and fight for.

Expecting ways of communicating to define an Autistic person

Feedback is welcomed, but please see the bottom of the post first.*

Autistics have largely argued that no one should assume we are alike. Our differences include communication styles, external presentations, or supports needed. Being human like anyone else, we also differ in goals, interests, and hobbies. We’re all still Autistic, but we need others to stop basing all their assumptions on that. In particular, people make assumptions from communication styles. Some of us communicate with significant support, little support, or somewhere in between. Some of us use assistive technology and some of us don’t. Some of us don’t have access to language most people understand. And defining us based on communication style we use (or off any one or two traits) is unhelpful.

Yet it’s not just an issue of non-autistic people making snap judgments. Some Autistics who talk neurodiversity on the Internet also like to ascribe certain Autistic traits to select narratives. One such narrative is that those of us who identify ourselves as speaking Autistics tend to be non-visibly autistic and have few direct support needs. Often, the narrative includes the idea that we’ve learned how read non-autistic people’s behavior or at least mimic it. Many posts intended to be helpful for community members are written through this lens. There are Autistic people who fit this narrative, and there is nothing wrong with that. The issue occurs when the narrative doesn’t make room for other people’s stories.

I identify myself as a mostly-speaking Autistic, and I don’t fit well into that narrative. My communication style is assumed to be “expressive” because I talk out loud most of the time. I’ve written about it before in the blog post “You call me expressive and miss the struggle it takes.” There, I wrote about my personal relationship with speech, and the incorrect inference someone made about me. They decided that I couldn’t have many support needs or real struggles with communication out loud.

But I do have a number of direct support needs, somewhere between “needs little to no direct support” and “has high direct support needs.” My mother, who lives several states away, attempts to provide what support she can, but I honestly need more in-person help. I am able to take care of my cat, but taking care of my own needs is harder. I am forced to navigate a system and a world not designed for me with very little built-in to help me. I also am not good at reading people, and it’s a challenge to mimic non-autistic people’s social norms. The majority of the time I also display body language and speech patterns that are visibly Autistic and/or neurodivergent.

Not all autistic people who speak the majority of the time are like each other, and it is harmful to assume this falsehood. I received and still get little support, in the past (such as during college) and now, when I need it. Many posts I see that are intended to be helpful for the type of Autistic they assume I am are actually not, either. And it harms Autistic people with higher support needs than mine, as well. The narrative doesn’t leave much room to presume competence (which is different than valuing a person only if they have some secret gift, which many seem to base their respect around). Few posts in the community are geared to be helpful for high-support Autistics who are very visibly so (Yes, I have admittedly written these posts before, and will probably mess up again in the future).

People who espouse this narrative seem to assume that other Autistics have the same struggles and the same strengths – and therefore there is no room to even consider what high-support Autistic people, and other people who don’t fit the narrative, can contribute to our movement. Non-autistic people should stop judging us from one or two features. But some in the Autistic community would do well to stop, too.

*(For the record – no, I’m not saying most of the people in the community make these kinds of assumptions. Just some do, but it still really needs to stop).

Against eugenics, and for a future that includes autistic and disabled people

Blogging Against Disablism Day 2017

In 1993, autistic advocate Jim Sinclair wrote “Don’t Mourn For Us.” It read “This is what we know, when you tell us of your fondest hopes and dreams for us: that your greatest wish is that one day we will cease to be… Don’t mourn for us. We are alive. We are real.” It appeared in the Autism Network International newsletter as an outline of a conference presentation they had given to parents of autistic children.

There are still many people and organizations who believe that autistics should be mourned for in life, rather than death; that there needs to be a way to find the ‘normal’ child who has been lost to autism, or prevent more autistic people from existing – cure culture. Cure culture creates dangerous dynamics, in which there is a strong focus on “fixing” autistic people, along with “battling” and “eradicating” autism. This culture also creates fear of autistic people and traits. One of the sources for the common cure culture we still see today lies in eugenics, a movement that gained popularity in the early 20th century.

It has been twenty-four years since “Don’t Mourn for Us.” We have made much progress. These include advances in representation, such as Julia the autistic Muppet and the company Apple putting out autism acceptance ads. Disability rights appeared on the political stage in a major way in 2016. The Autistic Self Advocacy Network, founded in 2006, has already become a significant player in national public policy. There have been pieces of legislation – like the 2010 Affordable Care Act – that benefit many autistic people, along with court rulings favoring disability rights and inclusive education. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued an HCBS settings rule in 2014  that aims to give people with disabilities support in real community settings. Lindt Chocolate stopped donating money from their chocolate bunnies to Autism Speaks. And there are more victories, large and small, I could name.

But some of the largest autism charities in the nation, such as Autism Speaks, are still ones that reject advocacy by autistics, and some people still believe in discredited theories of causation and quack cures. But more disturbing is the eugenics ideology being seen in US politics, and around the public conversation on disability – an example being immigration restriction. The ideas behind eugenics say that behind the moral failings of people – and of society – there is a hereditary cause. Some people, supporters of eugenics argue, are “born to be a burden on the rest.” Conversely, supporters of eugenics also believe there are genetically and morally superior individuals.

As Sarah Jones writes for New Republic: “But eugenics, though discredited, has never been abandoned. In fact, the most powerful people in America appear to enthusiastically embrace the idea that humans can be divided into inherently superior and inferior specimens and treated accordingly… Of course, none of the people in Trump’s inner circle would describe themselves as eugenicists. They would call themselves capitalists, patriots, and Christians.” Examples include Trump’s statements on genetic superiority, Steve Bannon’s desire to “limit the vote to property owners,” and Jeff Sessions’ support for the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act – an immigration restriction law heavily influenced by eugenicists.

And Jones is right. Eugenics ideology is rampant, but I have not yet seen any political figures actually proclaiming themselves a eugenicist. Eugenics has a bad, discredited name to it now, and it’s more persuasive to masquerade under the guise of “Make America Great Again” then outright call oneself a eugenicist. It’s more convincing to cloak eugenicist views in words and actions that make people feel proud, to appeal to people using discriminatory views without ever saying one is endorsing eugenics.

As ASAN’s executive director Julia Bascom wrote for Slate about the Trump administration, disability, and the autistic community,

He sees my community as damaged goods. Recent reports indicate that, in addition to meeting privately with anti-vaccination groups, the Trump administration may convene a task force to relitigate the clear and settled science on this issue, potentially headed by noted anti-vaxxer Robert Kennedy Jr. Like so many of his policies, this isn’t just an issue of a lack of respect for people with disabilities—we cannot forget that this dishonest and unscientific nonsense has a body count.

This administration espouses eugenicist views. This administration buys into dangerous causation theories. This administration sees us as a public burden. Eugenicist views run through so much of the history of cure culture and causation.

Eugenics is a threat to the autistic and disability communities, and it is a threat to so many others.  This threat is palpable as the White House and Congress try to strip 24 million Americans, many of whom are disabled, of life-saving health insurance. It is clear in a leaked draft of an executive order targeting disabled immigrants and their families. We don’t know if Jeff Sessions’ Department of Justice will enforce the 1999 Olmstead ruling, which helps keep states moving toward community integration – along with the Medicare and Medicaid funding that is at risk. It is evident when the White House lights it up blue for Autism Speaks’ brand of awareness rooted in harmful rhetoric and support for causation research.

But, as ASAN’s statement on the White House lighting it up blue reads, “ASAN will not let our community be forced back to the too-recent time when the public consensus was that autistic people should not exist.” I’m with them. The autistic community, and the disability community, must fight as we are able to against eugenicist and discriminatory policies and attempted actions. We cannot go back to being seen as nothing but a collection of causation theories, damaged and broken and in need of “fixing.” And we must fight against any policies that promote prevention research, policies that tell us we should not be part of humanity’s future. Because we are part of the future.

After Bell sterilized Carrie Buck, he was told “a hundred years from now… your descendants may well be proud.”

And other reasons Adam Cohen is wrong about eugenics and gene editing

On February 14, 2017, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and National Academy of Medicine (NAM) released a report entitled “Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance.” The report proclaimed that, with caution, limited clinical tests of genome editing should go forward. But human genome editing is controversial. Many international reports and laws support bans or limitations on genome editing.

The report departs from these internationally accepted ethics and laws, wrote the Center for Genetics and Society. (CGS). CGS is a science and bioethics group advocating “responsible uses and effective social governance” of human genetics. CGS put out official comments and a blog post on the report.  CGS also mentions the possibility of eugenics.

On March 17, 2017, Adam Cohen – author of Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck – began an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times with the words:

We entered a new phase as a species when Chinese scientists altered a human embryo to remove a potentially fatal blood disorder — not only from the baby, but all of its descendants…Last month, the scientific establishment weighed in. A National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine joint committee endorsed embryo editing aimed at genes that cause serious diseases when there is “no reasonable alternative.” …But the committee was also right to support limited embryo editing. This time around, eugenics could be a force for good.

He concludes the op-ed with:

Again, that need not be a bad thing. Twentieth century eugenics has rightly been called a “war on the weak” — its goal was to stop people with conditions like Huntington’s disease from reproducing. Twenty-first century eugenics can enable people with the Huntington’s gene to have children without it. The new eugenics can be a war for the weak.

Cohen’s op-ed, as disability rights journalist David Perry notes, “seems to miss the lessons of the history he synthesizes in his book… Any eugenic gene editing process that is constructed in our culture will reflect the ableist reality in which they are created.”

Further, Cohen misses several other points.

Eugenics was not just state-sanctioned sterilization. Eugenics was not just about preventing “the unfit” from having children. It was, and is, also about immigration, “racial purity,” and eliminating the “mentally defective” population through any means – whether by institutionalizing people judged as such, sterilizing them, preventing their marriage, or in the case of the Nazis, also murdering them.  Eugenicists were not worried about the people with any kinds of hereditary conditions, real or perceived, and far more keen on eliminating the “threat” to the sanctity of American society and economics.

Cohen asks the question if eugenics can be used for good. A colleague told Dr. John H. Bell after Bell sterilized Carrie Buck, “a hundred years from now you will still have a place in this history of which your descendants may well be proud.” Eugenicists believed they had the superior knowledge to know what was best for society, doing public good, based on pseudoscience and their own intensely biased beliefs. They believed future generations would be proud of their work – future generations that contained no “mental defectives,” generations that had been altered by them.

Cohen said “yes” in answer to his question, that the new eugenics can be for people with genetic conditions – that eugenics can be used for good. But he acknowledges that future generations would be permanently altered.

There is no such thing as good eugenics, and Cohen misses that point by a wide mark.

Teach Autistic Youth They Have a Community (Part One)

Other Autistics have written on the importance of disclosing an autism diagnosis to children. I fully agree. I also think knowing a diagnosis is a powerful tool in many ways, but it is not the only obligation of parents. I knew immediately about my ADHD diagnosis at age 7 or 8, then later my autism diagnosis at 14. I didn’t know I was disabled until college.

Many adults in my life told me I had ADHD. They just said it made me hyper, and gave me attention issues… then kept saying the same positive things about me: Smart. Unique. Creative. Reads a lot. When I got my autism diagnosis, they started saying: Smart. Reads a lot. Very high-functioning. Uniquely aware [of the diagnosis]. When they spoke of things I struggled with – like attention issues, staying organized, being polite, and making the right words happen – it was not to acknowledge disability, only deficit. It was not to work with me or discuss ways other people could adapt. I needed to adapt to the world, except for some accommodations.

They tried to quantify my life into skills and deficits. They told me I was more aware than others – like those in the special education classrooms – despite those kids being the most accepting of me when I hung out in their classrooms. I learned my deficits outweighed other qualities. I learned that there was no one else at all like me. I learned that I was alone. Not knowing what the diagnosis meant affected the ability to find friends, worsened depressive episodes and anxiety, and increased social isolation.

In my younger years, I had been able to get by through extensive book reading, writing fiction, and other solo activities. As I aged, my differences became more apparent. I wondered why I couldn’t be like everyone else or have friends. I had about one close friend in my high school years – an online one who meant a great deal to me. We couldn’t meet up in person, which I wanted desperately.  I wouldn’t know anything else but isolation until college – and making two autistic friends, along with a couple of others who accepted me.

The diagnosis given to me answered the question why for why I worked the way I did. No one helped me understand how it made my brain and body work. No one explained that it is a disability with ups and downs and effects from society. No one aided me in accessing community and culture. The diagnosis did not simply hand me all the tools I needed for life, in of itself. Community, once I found it, did.

Much of the autistic community may exist online, but it is vital. It will give youth access to writings by other autistic people. It gives them access to people who have written or know about coping tools, self-advocacy, and policy issues. It gives autistic youth an autistic culture. Parents (and other adults interacting with autistic youth), please explain autism to autistic youth. Please tell them more than a diagnosis. Please help them find other autistic people. If you don’t know the answers to their questions about autism, ask autistic people. It will change their world at least as much as telling them the diagnosis.



Part Two (Upcoming): Tips and Ways to Teach about Community

an exploration of autistic mad pride: part one

Introduction:

exploring the possibilities of neurodiversity, mental health, and autistic mad pride intersections

Recently, I found an article on Medium talking about schizophrenia fitting into neurodiversity, which got me thinking about how mental health more broadly fits into neurodiversity.

There are a lot of people I know with mental health disabilities/[a person’s preferred terminology] who dislike the idea of categorizing mental health things as neurodivergence, who feel that claiming mental health stuff as neurodivergence by definition means claiming it as an intrinsic part of the self that can’t be separated from oneself- and thus can’t be recovered from.

Currently I’ve been trying to think about and sort out the various models of mental health. For instance, the recovery model as it was conceptualized and formed after the period of large-scale, long-term institutionalization talked in part about recovering from the effects of society.

Then a lot of what “recovery” means, as I’ve seen it discussed, not just recovering from society’s effects, but primarily recovering from the effects of the mental health disability. I do know people with mental health disabilities who support this idea of recovery insofar that it means that they experience a significant reduction of symptoms along with developing coping strategies for symptoms.

However, as a disclaimer, I am not in fact trying to tell people that they cannot want to recover – experience a significant reduction in symptoms etc. – from their mental health disabilities.

But I think the recovery narrative, if pushed onto us by others, is, if not harmful, not exactly beneficial, because then it is not a choice. And a lot of times that’s the only narrative people are given.

And then a lot of autistics have co-occurring mental health disabilities, as I’ve discussed in this AACC presentation (PDF) and in this blog post series (the transcript for the AACC presentation is here as a PDF). And the autistic rights movement is rooted in neurodiversity and neurodivergence as identity. 

Then the questions I have are, that I will address in blog posts to come:

  • Part Two: Should mental health disabilities be fit under the category of neurodivergence as identity? (I can’t answer this for everyone, but I can answer it for myself and the way I see it).  
  • Part Three: Why haven’t the mad pride, mental health rights, and autistic rights movements intersected nearly as much (to my knowledge)?

 

We need to name some modern practices as eugenics – and don’t

How this failure to name eugenics – and then condemn it as such – has resulted in a growing acceptance of renewed efforts to “better humankind”

An article on Germany’s renewed efforts to document Nazi-era medical experimentation and murders of disabled people came out recently without ever mentioning the word eugenics. Published on January 5, 2017, the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Science Mag titled the piece “Germany to probe Nazi-era medical science.” The phrase “medical science” is too kind for murders rooted in a eugenics movement – and eugenics is not “medical science.”

I am pleased that Germany is doing a probe and that this is getting coverage in a science magazine with such detail, as eugenicists claimed scientific and medical evidence as their rationale. I am less so that they didn’t name eugenics. The article’s word choice got me thinking about eugenics in the past and modern eugenics. If you don’t name eugenics as such, it’s that much harder to recognize today.

Many people I know agree eugenics was a movement that happened in history, and name it in articles and other writing. But I have not seen as many people discussing eugenics practices happening in recent years and today. As a society – with some exceptions – we don’t call many actions eugenics or discuss the perils of eugenics practices occurring in them.

  • We don’t call it eugenics when prenatal testing in order to avoid having disabled children – particularly those with Down Syndrome – happens.
  • We don’t call it eugenics when disabled people receive the recommendation that they should not have a child because they have a disability.
  • We fail to discuss eugenics beliefs behind the removal of children from disabled parents on the basis that they are “unfit to parent” due to disability.
  • We don’t call it eugenics when many states still have sterilization laws on the books and when Buck v. Bell has never been overturned in its entirety.
  • We don’t call it eugenics when disabled people are still sterilized “for their own protection” in many countries, such as Australia. 
  • We don’t call it eugenics when discussions of “designer babies” that are “perfect” – meaning, to many, without any form of disability – occur.
  • We fail to discuss eugenics when talking about human genomics and gene-editing programs, such as CRISPR.

Yet these are rooted in eugenics, with the belief that disability is unacceptable and bad.

Joan Hume, a woman with a disability, wrote in 1995 about the “new eugenics,” prenatal testing, and having disabled children, “The message about disability is loud and clear: the prospect of having a disabled child is not acceptable for many prospective parents…. With the emphasis on “perfect babies” the message of the new technologies is that disabilities can and must be weeded out by eliminating foetuses with certain defective traits. This is clearly a modern version of the earlier eugenics perception that disability is inherently bad.”

And eugenics is, indeed, inextricably linked with the concept that disability is bad – regardless of whether the practices target non-disabled people or not. Eugenics tells people that disability and failure to conform to mainstream society’s expectations and rules are bad. Eugenics is ultimately rooted in  intertwining sets of bigotry: racism, sexism, classism, ableism, and more forms of oppression, using disability, “abnormality,” and “defects” to explain practices such as involuntary sterilization of any marginalized person.

The popular American eugenics movement of the Progressive Era past had eugenicists positing that intelligence and moral “defects” in the “feebleminded” people were passed down like Mendel’s peas generation by generation, using the growing field of genetics, the myth of the “feebleminded menace,”  and “fitter families” contests to make it plausible and acceptable to society. They twisted scientific concepts and used new scientific discoveries and theories of science to make it sound exciting to Progressive-era society – and they also capitalized on public fear and worry about poverty, race, immigration, and disability.

In many ways, it had legitimacy among many – eugenicists testified before Congress on immigration restrictions as “experts” in the years before and during World War II, many states had sterilization laws, and the Supreme Court affirmed a Virginia eugenics sterilization law 8-1 in 1927. In several ways, it did not. Some eugenicists’ careers in eugenics ended early due to the growing negative response from the public. Some prominent scientists decried eugenics as pseudoscience. And eugenicists in that era failed to see their ideas of sterilizing every “feebleminded” person fully implemented on a massive, national scale. 

Unlike the eugenics of the past, eugenics today – from what I’ve seen – is generally cloaked in scientific legitimacy, using real science like CRISPR and gene editing and genomics. Like the eugenics of the past, a lot of people still have fear and other negative, oppressive beliefs regarding poverty, race, immigration, disability, and more. Like the eugenics of the past, is is presented as exciting new scientific discoveries.  And that makes it just as terrifying, if not more.

(ETA: a good resource to follow is Genetics and Society, “a nonprofit information and public affairs organization working to encourage responsible uses and effective societal governance of human genetic and reproductive technologies and other emerging technologies.”)

2016 was lighting candles to mourn, but it was also carrying torches high

Year in Review: 2016

 Disability Rights, State of the Blogger, and Looking Ahead to 2017


  • Progress in 2016
    • #CripTheVote and disability on stage in U.S. politics
    • Disability Intersectionality Summit
    • Other moments in disability rights
  • State of the Blogger
    • Overview of the blogger’s 2016
    • Looking at, and valuing, disability and autistic history
    • Top five viewed posts and pages
    • Posts and pages that I liked but had fewer views
  • Looking Ahead
    • 2016 as an atypical year and the blogger’s plans for 2017
  • Conclusion

Progress 

#CripTheVote and disability on stage in U.S. politics

cripthevote-2

The logo of #CripTheVote, designed by Mike Mort. Blue text reads: #CripTheVote. There is graphic-design image of a voting ballot box with a ballot being dropped in. The ballot box has four blue squares, with line art in white of the standard wheelchair user disability icon, a brain, a pair of hands signing, and a person walking with a cane.

 

In 2016, Alice Wong (Disability Visibility Project, which chronicles disability stories), Andrew Pulrang (Disability Thinking blog and Center for Disability Rights), and Gregg Beratan started #CripTheVote, which is

a nonpartisan campaign to engage both voters and politicians in a productive discussion about disability issues in the United States, with the hope that Disability takes on greater prominence within the American political landscape. We hope to encourage people with disabilities to engage with the election at all levels from President on down, and to vote. We also want to hear candidates engage with disability policy issues and disabled people as much as possible.

They hosted Twitter chats, provided resources to disabled voters, and sparked a more organized engagement with politics from the disability community. It brought disability to the stage of politics in a major way, and enabled disabled people to have a central platform to organize around and put their resources and news.

Hillary Clinton released an autism plan and announced support of the Disability Integration Act after an autistic person stood up and asked if she supported it, leading to then-candidate Bernie Sanders co-sponsoring the bill. Then at the Democratic National Convention, a disabled person – disability rights activist Anastasia Somoza – took the stage. 2016 was the year, as Dylan Matthews writes, that disability rights broke through in national politics and disabled people became seen as a constituency by politicians.

Disability Intersectionality Summit

This year, the Disability Policy Consortium accepted proposals and held a Disability Intersectionality Summit. Presentations included topics on the intersections of being undocumented, being LGBTQ+, being a person of color, having mental health disabilities, on #DisabilityTooWhite – the hashtag and movement around the the disability community’s failure to represent racially diverse voices – and more. It was held in Boston on November 5.

Other moments in disability rights include: 

Disability rights groups struck a major blow to sheltered workshops.  Maryland voted to end subminimum wage. An investigation has finally opened into Illinois’ group homes for disabled people. A major Minnesota job provider for disabled people agreed to reform its hiring practices. Michigan banned non-emergency restraint and seclusion for disabled students. Georgia’s governor spoke in favor of Employment First policies for disabled people in Georgia.

The FDA finally put out a proposed rule for banning contingent electric shock devices like those used at the Judge Rotenberg Center. A major case involving a girl and her service dog went before the Supreme Court, and could open up an easier path for disabled students and their families to make schools comply with various laws. Litigation against Georgia’s substandard, segregated “education” system called GNETS for students with disabilities by the Department of Justice moved forward.


State of the Blogger

Overview of the blogger’s 2016

It was a hard year, like it was for many. I spent a serious amount of time dealing with badbrains. I wrote about the dehumanization of psychiatric wards here. I adopted a cat, though, so that makes up for a lot of things.

In terms of other advocacy, I continued volunteering for a non-profit’s social media that I have done since 2015. I also kept working for a non-profit that I been with since December and continued to blog. I began work on a great number of blogging projects like Autistic Community on Medium, and Welcome to the Autistic Community on Tumblr. I also ran Autistic History Month this year.

I also decided to turn my life experiences and history research into writings for publications and have published with the Establishment and the Deaf Poets Society on institutionalization and psychiatric wards, eugenics history and Buck v. Bell, and my experience with housing in college.

Looking at, and valuing, disabled and autistic history

In addition I have been working on my disability history/eugenics history blog more. I revamped my eugenics history 101 post into a downloadable PDF. and updated the resources list for that blog. I worry a lot about eugenics as a popular movement being back full force – it’s still here, in some areas and ways.

I also ran the Autistic History Month blog this year; a link compilation for autistic history can be found here and the posts for 2016 here. As Sarah Pripas-Kapit and I remarked in the closing post for Autistic History Month, history is essential to working for change today:

Thank you for furthering the knowledge of autistic history, and showing that we have a history. I am the first to admit that I don’t know everything about autistic history… Knowing history is vital, especially in this time of turmoil for many. Knowing autistic, and other disability history, is vital. If we don’t know how we organized and formed communities in the past, it’ll be harder to organize and sustain community now. -Kit Mead

It can be tempting to believe that history is an upwards trajectory, with things always getting better and better. Historians call this the “Whiggish view of history.”

Yet the Whiggish view of history oftentimes is not supported by evidence… While the past ten years has been a period of progress for the autistic community, I fear that we may be heading into a period of regression. As so many others have said, the election of Donald Trump to the presidency is looking to be disastrous for people with disabilities. Like many of you, I am concerned about the months and years to come.

History tells us that civil rights are never a done deal. We have to work continually to uphold them.

But I hope that history can also provide hope. We are not the first generation of disabled people to face an ableist state and rollbacks of progress. By looking to the past, we can find a way forward during these turbulent times. -Sarah Pripas-Kapit

Top five viewed posts and pages

Posts and pages that I liked but had fewer views


Looking Ahead

2016 as an atypical year and the blogger’s plans for 2017 

Like s.e. smith says, 2016 was not normal and therefore, we should not allow ourselves to long for 2016 and make it a crowning glory of years that we look back to sometime in the middle of 2017 and go “well, things were so much better then!”

I really recommend reading the post by s.e. smith for how we cannot normalize 2016 because it wasn’t normal. We lost a lot in 2016 and our state of politics has steadily descended into even more chaos than usual. It’s not like I particularly look forward to the next several years’ potential events, but I will take a lot of pride in being alongside many other great activists, working to keep what progress we have made.

In 2017, I will continue to update my post-election resources page and continue my advocacy work, sharing and disseminating resources. I will continue to blog about the things that mattered before this election, and will blog on the things that matter more now because of the election.


Conclusion

2016 may have been holding candles up against a darkening sky in mourning, but it was also keeping candles lit and torches high against rain and darkness. We made a lot of progress in many different areas, and we also lost a lot – but we have faced dark times before, though never like this. We will work against the rapidly encroaching darkness of night to be lighthouses in the fog and darkness for many ships. Torches held high, we face 2017 and the years to come.