#why do I want to be either side of this | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

disabledunitypunk · 7 months

Text

I wanna talk about a real problem in marginalized communities, but especially the disabled community.

The conflation of "privilege" with "oppression".

Here's two examples that I'm directly pulling from experience.

I am not intellectually disabled. I have fluctuating cognitive disabilities, but I have privilege over people with intellectual disabilities.

I also have significantly disabling chronic illness to the point where at times I have not been able to engage with hobbies due to being too sick. Disabled people who are less sick and more able to pursue activities they enjoy have privilege over me.

It's something that's not neat and simple, either. An intellectually disabled person who is able to engage with hobbies vs me? We would essentially both have privilege over each other on different axes. You can't then determine that one of us is ultimately generally more privileged than the other, because that's not how it works. Like if you have privilege x and they have privilege y, it isn't x-y=positive or negative privilege. You can't "solve" that equation because x and y aren't variables that can be substituted for number values.

So, first taking the example of hobbies - a recent controversial post we made that invited harassment. People were quick to tell us what our own experience was and that we weren't experiencing ableism - because they had had the privilege of never experiencing it. That was lateral ableism, and not okay.

Note: There may be people who DIDN'T have that privilege who were also saying the same - though everyone I saw talking about this specifically mentioned their ability to do hobbies, and that was who the main part of my response was directed at. However, I even specifically responded briefly to any people who were doing that - much more gently - to basically say that if they were being assimilationist out of fear that they didn't have to be, and to remind them that they aren't bad if they can't have hobbies.

On the other hand, way back when I first started this blog, I talked about reclaiming the r slur as someone who had significant trauma from being called it as a kid. I talked about how the reason I was called it was specifically because of my social issues due to my developmental disorders while being a gifted kid.

To make it clear - I was called the r slur for not understanding social cues and rules as a "smart" kid, because that's one of the things it meant to them. They weren't insulting my intellectual intelligence, but rather my social ability - at most, you could argue they were insulting my social intelligence - which having a low amount of WAS actually a feature of my disabilities.

I also spoke about how I wasn't reclaiming it to continue treating it as a bad thing, to insult even just myself, but rather to say "so what if I am? that's not bad". Y'know, the whole point of reclaiming.

I was told what my own experience was and that I was experiencing misdirected ableism because they were actually insulting traits I didn't have and therefore they were actually hurting intellectually disabled people but not me. Not because they had the privilege not to experience what I did - but because me having privilege was treated as the right to tell me I had never experienced the ableism they had.

They were treated not just as the experts on ableism against intellectual disabilities - which they are, of course - but also the experts on ableism against people who specifically DON'T have intellectual disabilities when it takes the same or similar forms as ableism against intellectual disabilities.

We all know that bigots don't wait to find out your correct identity before attacking you. We all know that there are identities commonly mistaken for others, that can set you up for repeated abuse over an identity you don't have. But what we refuse to acknowledge is that there are types of bigotry that can manifest identically in some ways for two different identities - and that anyone who experiences that bigotry is an expert on it and deserves to have a place in the conversation about it.

Someone with intellectual disabilities fundamentally cannot know that people without intellectual disabilities DON'T face the same kind of ableism on the basis of other disabilities that person DOES have because they have not ever lived that experience, just as, say, I couldn't say that an intellectually disabled person never faces specific kinds of ableism I face due to being a wheelchair user, because I am not intellectually disabled.

What I can say: "I face these types of ableism because of these disabilities and this is how they manifest."

What I can't say, because it is erasure and lateral ableism no matter my relative privilege: "You don't face this type of ableism for [disability I don't have] because it's exclusive to [disability I have] and any ableism that manifests that way is actually an attack on me."

Fundamentally, you cannot say that someone with a different disability DOESN'T face a specific type of ableism because you are not an authority on the experience of that disability. You are an expert on the experience of your disability. You cannot claim exclusive experiences because to do so, you would have to experience the disabilities you don't have while also not experiencing the ones you do. You would have to verify experiences that you simply don't have - in multiple places and contexts and presentations and as multiple people.

Oh wait, there's a simpler way to do that.

Listen to people about their experiences of their own disabilities and the ableism they face for it.

(Plaintext: Listen to people about their experiences of their own disabilities and the ableism they face for it.)

It's not ableist to say "no, you aren't the only disability that faces this ableism" or "no, it isn't targeted at you when it's aimed at me" or "actually, bigots also use [slur] to mean [definition specifically attacking my disability]". It is however ableist to tell people that because they have an axis of privilege over you, they can't talk about their own oppression on an entirely different axis because you've decided that experiencing similar oppression means you're the only person who experiences said oppression.

Or to put it more simply: Experiencing a type of ableism does NOT give you the right to speak over others when they say they experience it too for different reasons. Having something bad happen to you as a group does not give you proof that you're the ONLY group it happens to.

"X is caused by y, therefore x is ONLY caused by y" is quite literally a logical fallacy. It's called fallacy of the single cause (at least it's a nice obvious name, honestly).

This is the same discourse as cripplepunk. In fact, it's the primary motivator behind most slur discourse, and the reason why I'd honestly rather have blanket permission issued within oppressed groups I'm in* for everyone to reclaim in good faith** any slur that affects that group.

**What does "reclaim in good faith" mean? It means reclaiming only for self-usage, and only for self-usage specifically in a positive way - so no "ugh, I'm such a useless cripple", for example. True reclamation does require use of it against you/your disability in the first place, however, part of not being a cop about it is assuming that anyone who uses it in a positive sense for self-labeling has in fact experienced that. In short, it involves believing people about the oppression they explicitly say or imply through their reclamation that they've experienced.

*Note: I am specifically NOT a person of color or a member of an oppressed ethnoreligion/ethnicity, and recognize that dynamics of racial and ethnic oppression may be unique in some ways. However in disabled, queer, plural, alterhuman, and other marginalized spaces I do occupy, these are my feelings.

It is lateral ableism to tell another disabled person that they haven't experienced a type of ableism or didn't experience it due to their ACTUAL disability and therefore have no right to reclaim what was used to hurt them.

It is ableism to say "the bullet meant to shoot you, that hit you, was designed in part to hurt me, and therefore any time someone is shot with it, it was actually an attack on me. Hand over the bullet and never keep it or use it as you please again or you're basically shooting me with a different bullet." (For those that struggle with metaphors, the bullets are ableism.)

It's ducks saying that deer have no right to reclaim shotgun shells. Yes, slugs are more common than buckshot, but there's literally a type of the same exact kind of ammo designed for use on the deer too. In just the same way, some slurs and other forms of ableism are more typically used against one group but even have a (sometimes identical) variant specifically designed for use against other groups. "Mental cripple" and "retard" for sociodevelopmental disabilities are prime examples of this.

This is a wider problem in marginalized communities. "If you have any privilege at all, ever, you need to sit down and shut up about your own experiences. Only our least privileged members are the experts on any of our experiences. They make the rules about which of your own experiences you're allowed to talk about and what you're allowed to say about them." What's important to note, is that this is coming as much from the members with said privilege as the ones without.

And yes, this is an EXTREMELY insular community issue, but it's not mutually exclusive to the fact that large portions of the community DON'T listen to the less privileged ones about their own experiences! Just like the hobbies example (which, I know people may dismiss or cry 'false equivalence', but I want to again note that it primarily affects bedbound people who are too sick to do things they enjoy, and therefore less privileged by any metric).

I specifically referenced that example because it's exactly more privileged members speaking over less privileged members about the less privileged members' OWN experiences.

In fact, I'd say it's in fact a RESPONSE to that kind of being spoken over. It's an extreme pendulum swing in the other direction - "you need to shut up and LISTEN to us about our experiences". Which, if it stopped there, would be perfect! It's the part that follows it - "therefore, if we experience something, we're the ONLY people who are allowed to talk about it and the only people who even experience it".

I've seen time and time again, too, that even if you conclusively prove you experience something, the goalposts just get moved.

"Well, you experience it but not systemically."

"Okay, but you experienced it less."

"It didn't hurt you as much because it was meant to hurt me instead."

"Well, you're probably reclaiming it as an insult." (despite no proof of such, or even proof to the contrary)

"Well, if you experienced it systemically and it did hurt you and you experienced it just as much, it's actually because of [other identity that we begrudgingly acknowledge is affected] and not [identity that you say actually caused you to experience it] and it therefore isn't even [same type of bigotry] but [completely different type] instead."

"Well, even if you experienced it systemically as much as I did, it still hurts me more because it's about my identity and not yours, even though you were the one literally being attacked with it."

And if all that fails it's "no, that's not why you experienced it" or "no, you didn't experience that".

All examples I touched on earlier in this post, but still important to talk about specifically.

The person being hurt by a type of ableism, including slurs, is the person who they are being used against, period. It doesn't matter if they have "the right" disability. It doesn't matter what group the slurs or ableism is primarily used against. The bigots are TRYING to hurt the person they are specifically using the bigotry against, and that person is the one who ends up hurt by it. Full stop, no argument.

And if someone is hurt by a word, especially repeatedly, they have a right to reclaim it. Period.

At the end of the day, does this matter all that much? It's just community microaggressions, right?

Here's my feelings on it: I'm never going to let petty infighting get in the way of fighting for total disabled liberation. Just because some individuals are guilty of lateral ableism doesn't mean I won't fight for a world in which they face no ableism. It would be ableist of me to leave them behind over something like this. Not to mention, there's no need for anyone to be considered an authority on ableism in a world where there is none.

That being said, it is still a minor hurdle on the way to disabled liberation. If we police our own community and shut down discussions of ableism, how can we effectively fight for our right to not be policed or shut down by abled people? We're demonstrating that it's acceptable behavior.

You can argue all you want that abled people should recognize that it's different and they don't have a voice in the conversation - but what about those who are explicitly telling abled people that it's okay to shut down THESE disabled people talking about THEIR experiences because they're privileged invaders in the conversation and abled people should use their privilege over us to act as an even higher authority and stop us?

What about the conflicting messages of "abled people use your power over these disabled people to force them not to talk about the ableism they experience, but not these OTHER disabled people doing the same thing".

It's one thing to make a blanket statement to say "hey, if someone is actually attacking the validity of a disabled (or any marginalized) identity or talking over them about their own experiences, then shut that down". Saying a given marginalized identity doesn't exist or is inherently harmful is always bad. Talking over someone on their OWN experiences, when they are simply talking about things they've directly experienced, is always bad. I don't think it's the end of the world to say "use your privilege to shut down ableism" to abled people.

The problem is telling abled people that someone TALKING about their own legitimate experiences is bad and it's okay to shut it down. Abled people should not ever be given permission to do so - whether using their own judgment or just doing so on the word of disabled people.

Even besides that, though, it's still ableism, and lateral ableism is also a barrier in the way of total disabled liberation. It is an active threat to unity, to our ability to organize and demand change. We can fight to remove it from our communities while still focusing our energy primarily outward on fighting for liberation within the larger abled world.

Finally, it's an issue because it creates more hierarchies to solve existing ones. It says "instead of addressing the actual ableism, we're just going to flip it so you're the one experiencing it instead". It's like the so-called "feminists" that just want a matriarchy. It's not about creating a safer environment, it's about being the one to perpetrate the harm currently being done to you.

So, in cases where neither group has any real systemic power over each other, it doesn't even do that - it simply creates an environment where the original harm continues to be perpetuated while another new harm occurs. It devolves into a petty slap fight, distracting from actual liberation while also causing both parties to be hurt. That's not acceptable praxis. It's not praxis at all.

Even with the harm being small in scale, it's still not okay. Two injustices don't make a justice, just as two wrongs don't make a right.

This is very much something we need to address - in disabled spaces being my focus here - but also in queer, plural, alterhuman, and other marginalized spaces. And all of stems from the idea that "privilege" is the same as having the power to oppress someone. It's the idea that if you have an axis of privilege over another person with the same overall marginalized identity as you, that you are equivalent to being nonmarginalized compared to them and therefore disagreeing with them in any way about your OWN marginalized experiences is bigotry.

Functionally, it's that you're a bigoted privileged invader of marginalized spaces if you dare to have an opinion on a shared type of oppression. And speaking as a transfemmasc person, mayyyyyybe we should actually kill that rhetoric forever.

#ableism #privilege #oppression #reclamation #cw guns #fwiw it seems people who are MORE privileged are MORE willing and likely to harass over this #while less privileged people are more likely to block #and I cannot overstate that harassment is never acceptable #which is why we also have a hard rule about simply ignoring or blocking when we're the ones in a position of privilege #and that should be your rule too #(I mean engaging respectfully if you disagree is fine either way tbc)#just having been on both sides it would not be okay for me in the cases where I am less privileged to tell people what they experience #in fact that's the whole reason I created this blog #cripplepunk discourse led me to advocate for all neurodivergent people being able to reclaim cripple and being included in cripplepunk #if they wanted to be and found meaning in doing so #because 1. cripple is not a physical-disability-exclusive slur #and 2. neurodivergence can be physically disabling #so if there was a movement that centered physical disability that didn't gatekeep a universal disabled slur #people physically disabled by their neurodivergence should STILL not be told that they're wrong/lying about that experience #and should be let into the space on the basis of their neurophysical disabilities #also a lot of times the posts that are like 'able-bodied NDs do not derail' are talking about experiences that both groups experience #and it's not 'derailing' to say 'hey I experience this too for a different reason!' even if said reason is not at all physically disabling #I've seen SO MANY physically disabled people say 'neurodivergent people don't experience this!!1'#and just sat there going 'I experienced this as a neurodivergent person before I became physically disabled for YEARS #and continue to do so due at least in part to my neurodivergence now that I have a physical disability that could also contribute to it #anyway #mod stars #unitypunk

26 notes · View notes

spookyc · 9 months

Text

Having watched Nimona recently, I feel it's important for me, as a trans person, to discuss a certain criticism I've seen regarding the movie. A criticism I take great issue with, and one that I think needs to be addressed. And that is the supposed issue of Nimona being "too blatant" about its queerness, that its message is "ham-fisted" in nature. And that bothers me. It bothers me that people think that something that is blatant is inherently bad. It bothers me that people think its message is ham-fisted simply because you don't have to go searching for it. Something being obvious isn't inherently negative and I'm tired of that sentiment being thrown around like it's fact. Because subtlety isn't an inherent good either, neither are good or bad entirely. And frankly, when it comes to queerness in media, the only way it will have an impact is if it's blatant. Especially regarding transness.

Because, if you'll allow me to be completely blunt and candid, we don't live in a society where subtle queerness can be appreciated. We live in a society that wants people like me eradicated for simply existing. Laws are being passed continously that discriminate against us and prevent us from living comfortably. We live in a world rn where we either have to suffer in silence or fucking die. That is the reality trans people live in. So if those that hate us are given any indication that they can disregard us, ignore us, pretend we don't exist, they will take that opportunity everytime. We've seen this with Across the Spiderverse, where even trans flags and trans colors splashed across Gwen will still lead to people denying her transness.

Because at the end of the day, Spiderverse is still about Miles Morales, and it's still about Spiderman, and Spiderman's story isn't inherently queer. So they'll make every excuse to ignore Gwen's transness, or they'll simply ignore her story to focus on the rest of what ATSV has to offer. Ultimately, it can still be overlooked and enjoyed without acknowledging that aspect. But that isn't the case for Nimona. Nimona is a queer story with queer themes and queer characters, queerness is baked into the very core of what Nimona is. To not acknowledge those aspects is to blatantly misinterpret the movie, you cannot divorce Nimona from being gay, and trans, and nonbinary, and genderfluid and everything that falls in between. It is blatant, and really, I think that's what we need rn. We need something so unapolegetically queer that people can't ignore it, they can't disregard it, and they can't look away from it. Because then that means they have to acknowledge us, that they can't wipe us out, that we are here and we are loud and we WILL make our voices known. Being quiet helps no one, but being loud is what inspires change, it's what makes people uncomfortable, and I say we make them as uncomfortable as possible.

For every bigot that wants us dead, that thinks we're monsters and unfit for society, you will have the bigots who understand that they're wrong. You will have the bigots who change the way they see us, and might even recognize how harmful they were being. You don't get that by keeping your head down and hinting towards a vague metaphor that a character might be trans, because with how things are right now, it won't be enough to make an impact. You do that by making a metaphor so obvious it bypasses subtext and becomes the text, you do that by having characters like Nimona, who simply wish to exist without everyone pestering her about who she is, she's Nimona, and that's the only answer she or anyone should have to give. You do that by intiating a rallying cry, to inspire trans people, kids or otherwise, and to state plain and clearly that we see you, and that you aren't alone.

So yeah Nimona is very blatant in its queerness, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

#nimona #spiderverse #across the spiderverse #discussion #queer discussion #gwen stacy #miles morales #the movie itself commentates on this by having ballister and nimona be the sides of new age queers and old age queers respectively #ballister wants to lay low and not make a scene and encourages nimona to not shapeshift in order to be more discreet #while nimona simply wants to exist as herself and why should she bother hiding from people who will hate her either way?#who is that helping?#i think the same applies here to #stonewall started as a riot and it is the reason we have pride #bowing our heads to people who want us dead no matter what we do will not save us #so fuck subtlety #ill take subtlety when we live in a world where i can live freely and not worry for my life

24 notes · View notes