Q:Ok you have a problem. LESS AUTISM WOULD BE A WONDERFUL THING!
I think this is regarding this post.
I’m utterly unqualified to speak on this topic, but the way I see it is that autism differs from, say, PTSD or cancer in that it’s not something which necessarily decreases quality of life or lifespan; the way in which it should be handled the same as those two things is that people should be treated no differently for having it, seen as no less inherently people.
Neither of these things is the case: people seem to believe that being autistic means that one’s standard of living is lesser and therefore that one is less of a person, and that elimination of autistic people (and I don’t just mean “reducing the rates of autism in new births”, I mean “discouraging autistic people from seeking treatment or support that would increase their standard of living or keep them alive”, I mean “assuming all autistic people want a cure” or “all autistic people should be taught from early childhood that their #1 priority is to act as normal as possible, even if it’s to their detriment”) is an ideal.
There are serious problems with all of this, regardless whether or not on a macro level you believe that “less autism would be a wonderful thing”. We can’t just, for example, say “oh yeah, flashcards should be banned because rote memorization is an uneffective learning technique and far less than ideal” without also considering that the current school system makes them the best solution for many learners who are tactile or otherwise prefer them to other forms of note-taking, like myself. Whether or not you dispute the initial point that flashcards are less than ideal, you’d still be a douche for not admitting they are useful to many people who don’t want to change at all.
If anybody who has a deeper understanding or experience of autism than myself (two borderline, very high-functioning Autistics in this family, and I’m well aware that allistic-relatives-of-people-with-autism have the potential to do the most damage), please do weigh in; I’ll pop this in the autism tag to that effect.
The vaccine is introduced into the child, the child then grows and tries to find its own personality, and if this is inhibited by mercury or other substances present in the vaccine which enter the brain, the child becomes gay. The problem will especially be present in the next generations, because when gays have children, the children will carry along with them the DNA of their parent’s illness. Because homosexuality is a disease, even though the WHO has decided that it is not. Who cares! The reality is that it is so. Each vaccination produces homosexuality, because it prevents the formation of one’s personality. It is a microform of autism, if you will. You will see how many gays there will be in the next generation, it will be a disaster.
Gian Paolo Vanoli, Italian scientist. Translation from this article.
This is seriously problematic if only for the horrible ableism. He goes on to say that he supports gay rights, because he would not blame a person with cancer for their disease and therefore also doesn’t hate gay people. But as we can all see, the problem is twofold: firstly, the assumption that homosexuality (and autism) are inherently unfortunate things whose bearers are a lesser class and minimizing their numbers is ideal; and secondly, the idea that vaccinations frequently cause DNA-altering harm that can be passed on.
on prince-koyangi, @tumblrTXT, and identities
So I just heard that the prince koyangi blog was a troll - and, really, not surprised given the behaviour and style of that account. It made me squirm to see both these things all over my social media feeds, in no small part because I could easily be seen as “one of those nutjobs”. (I’m going to clarify my identity, but that’s for another post.) That and the fact that often legitimate portions of an overall problematic identity were being mocked, like asexuality.
I’m going to say this much.
I am cynical of transethnicism, outside of an adopted child finding conflict between the way they are treated because of their being a certain race and the fact that they have been raised in a different cultured household. The fact that at least some who claim to be otherkin are people who if born ten years earlier would have expressed it via writing short stories as someone else or in a fantasy persona on a forum or something does not mean that I can make a judgement that they all are pretenders. Asexual people are… ace. (Sorry.)
…but does it matter? I don’t think that’s the issue. The issue is when someone’s identity is being used as an implement to mask more dangerous or bigoted or hurtful or damaging behaviour. When transethnicism becomes an implement with which racist stereotypes are perpetuated, or which disregards or shouts louder than or minimizes the legitimate experiences of someone who is actually treated as that ethnic group. (Which it basically always has been, from what I can see, but that’s the point - call them out on that.) When asexuality becomes a motivation for slut-shaming (and I’m sorry to say I’ve seen this once irl and not spoken up), or when high-functioning autism becomes something to be proud of with the price of belittling anyone who is not typically good at logic or does not share common “autistic” interests and traits.
I was a teenager back in the days when old-school forums were around. I roleplayed in text-based games, or in post-by-post forum threads, or by simply making a whole bunch of email addresses for different “people” and listing each “person” on a penpal site and exchanging emails with others. I think it’s highly likely that if I was thirteen today I’d be on tumblr pretending to be something I wasn’t. And there’s nothing wrong with that! What would be utterly fair though would be that I get called out where I’m being stereotypical (as I was once or twice when pretending to be Iranian, being that my influences were obviously Malaysian Islam and nothing like the reality) or when I’m being hurtful or when my pretending becomes otherwise detrimental to an actual group or entity. But one can do that without denigrating the entire group which identifies with the word this particular person is using dangerously.
As many a popular-but-fake-persona-blog has hit the news and receded, it’s clear that impersonation or roleplaying, whether due to emotional issues on the part of the puppetmaster or not, is not limited to those claiming extravagant identities, although by nature of often being a cry for attention the character chosen is often dramatic in one way or other. The terminally ill girl and the Middle Eastern lesbian are two notable fake blogs that come to mind. Should people react to all poignant blogs with doubt? That’s up to them. Should they troll these with hateful messages? No! Even if they were fake, that’s both giving the master more ammunition and just being a jerk. I choose to treat these interesting story blogs as just that, interesting. Things I can learn from. I may be thrown if my favourite blogger turns out to be a scam. I may think “thought so” if one I dislike is a scam. But they’re interesting just to see how people articulate their identities and what they think and how they think, and many, whether real or fake, in my mind are literary works of art. Social experiments. I know I treated mine as such, way back when.
And if they’re being misogynistic or racist or their beliefs are clearly damaging their health or someone else’s, I’ll call them out on it - just like I would anyone else.
I’m interested in your thoughts. Have I missed anything out? Said anything you disagree with?
conversation with my parents
- (about a guy who was driving around all the streets in our area.)
- Dad: Do you think he might be checking for houses to rob?
- Mom: Oh he kind of slowed down at for-sale signs. Maybe just looking for a place.
- Dad: Yeah, he's Chinese anyway. Not a likely thief.
- Me: Dude, that's racial profiling.
- Dad: Listen, going by statistics isn't racist and I'm sick and tired of people saying it is. The stats say Pacific Island families have much much higher rate of child abuse, and saying that is not racist. It's the truth. (etc etc this goes on for a long time, basically "I'm not racist, they're actually like that.")
- Me: Stats are stats. They need to be changed and are an indication of a problem. But assuming individuals behave in a certain way because of their race - well their appearance really in this case, you drove past him and caught a glimpse of him - is a self-fulfilling prophecy as well as being racial profiling. If I belonged to a community where stats said we had a high rate of child abuse I'd try to change that but I wouldn't appreciate automatically being assumed to be a child abuser. There are plenty of people from across different races who abuse their children.
- Dad: Well I didn't judge him by his race! You heard Mom say that he was slowing down at for sale signs so he probably wasn't a burglar.
- Me: You specifically wrote that possibility off because of his race.
- Mom: LOL you are so autistic.
- Me: Me? Or Dad?
- Mom: You.
- Me: I don't even- what has that got to do with anything?
- Mom: You get so caught up and obsessive over some things. That's a silly autistic thing.
- Me: ...