Aggression

 In light of yet another article propagating the myth that large percentages of autistic and other disabled and neurodivergent people have "aggression," I needed to clarify exactly what these writers, doctors, therapists and "experts" are getting wrong about what aggression is and isn't. So let's look at the differences among three distinct concepts: self-injurious behaviors, self-defense, and actual true aggression.

Self-injurious behaviors (SIBs) are things people do to their own bodies that may cause pain or injury. They are not suicide attempts, and, unless something goes very wrong, they are nonfatal.

*Is this behavior a problem?

Some people with SIBs consider them a problem. Some don't. Some people with SIBs who consider their SIBs a problem want to receive treatments/therapies to reduce or manage the impulse to the behaviors. Some don't. The only person who can judge whether a SIB is a problem and if so what to do about it is the person whose body it is.

*Should other people interfere in it?

No, unless the person with the behavior has explicitly asked you to interfere.

*Should this behavior be grounds for abridging someone's freedom of movement?

No.

Self-defense is the use of physical force to prevent or resist violence or abuse against oneself. Some common examples of self-defense by disabled people include:

A nurse tries to inject a patient with a drug against his will, and the patient hits the nurse.

A therapist tries to restrain a disabled person, and the disabled person bites the therapist.

A caregiver tries to touch, groom, feed, steer, or transport a disabled person against her will, and the disabled person hits the caregiver.

Drivers try to transport a disabled woman to a forced labor site, and the disabled woman attacks the drivers.

*Is this behavior a problem?

No. The abuse that makes it necessary is the problem.

*Should other people interfere in it?

Yes, if possible, other people should interfere to help the person defending him/herself.

*Should this behavior be grounds for abridging someone's freedom of movement?

No.

Actual true aggression is physical force or the threat of physical force against other people when it is not necessary for self-defense. Examples include hurting people in anger, hurting people to punish them, or hurting people in order to assert power over them.

*Is this behavior a problem?

Yes.

*Should other people interfere in it?

Yes, depending on the situation. If possible, the person exhibiting actual true aggression should be stopped.

*Should this behavior be grounds for abridging someone's freedom of movement?

Sometimes. Not necessarily. Depending on what is necessary to protect other people from the actually truly aggressive person's actual true aggression. Even in cases in which a person is being actually truly aggressive, the person should be entitled to basic human rights and civil liberties protections. In the U.S. criminal justice systems, this includes the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers, being presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Disabled people who commit actual true aggression should be held accountable for their actions, but they should not be subject to cruelties such as forced drugging, indefinite imprisonment/institutionalization, or sterilization. There are also ways to reduce and protect people from actual true aggression besides punishment and incarceration. For example, people with access to education, employment, financial security, and meaningful control over their lives are less likely to be actually truly aggressive than those without those things.

Ariel and Ursula feminism

 A shorthand I've come up with in feminist discourse is a distinction between Ariel Feminism and Ursula Feminism.

It's become Trendy in feminist circles to claim that the Disney movie "The Little Mermaid" is anti-feminist, or that the villain, Ursula, is actually an admirable character. The argument they make is that Ariel sets a bad example to girls by giving up her voice (this is usually phrased as "giving up her voice for a man," although that's not canonically accurate to the story -- she gives up her voice to gain human legs and walk on land, not to be with a man), and that Ariel, at age 16, is too young to leave her father's house and pursue a romantic relationship in the first place. By contrast, they argue, Ursula is an empowered, successful businesswoman who earns her wealth through fair exchanges, is thwarted by Triton's patriarchy, and is positive queer-coded and plus-sized representation.

There is another way to view "The Little Mermaid" through a feminist lens, one that centers Ariel through a disability rights and youth rights perspective. In order to escape Triton's abusive control and the restrictive environment she is confined to, Ariel is forced into a predatory arrangement with Ursula. She makes the choice to change her body to suit her identity -- a narrative that resonates with many transgender people. She loses the ability to speak and sing, but continues to express her agency and wishes nonverbally. And while her romantic relationship with Eric is rushed, this is because of the limitation imposed by Ursula, not because of Ariel's judgment. Ariel does the best she can to exercise her agency within the external constraints imposed upon her by Triton, Ursula, human society, and her own body.

So, to sum up--

Ursula feminism:

• disability, especially speech/communication disability, is pathetic weakness
• strength is a virtue
• women who gain power or wealth by exploitation are admirable examples of strong womanhood
• the best way to survive in an exploitative system is to become an exploiter
• the best way to protect young people is to keep them under parental authority
• when young people escape/defy parental authority and end up in bad situations, this is evidence of their poor judgment
• young people should not be allowed to change their bodies, because they have poor judgment
• young people should not be allowed to have romantic relationships
• "weak" people deserve to be under the control of "strong" people, and can only be protected by being under the control of "benevolent" "strong" people

Ariel feminism:

• it's okay to be disabled
• it's okay to be young
• it's okay to be nonspeaking
• it's okay to be weak
• being exploited is the fault of the exploiter and the exploitative system, not the exploited person
• young people should be free to change their bodies
• people don't need to "earn" the right to be free from abuse or exploitation by physical strength or material resources
• when young people escape/defy parental authority and end up in bad situations, this is because their environment has set them up to fail
• the best way to protect people is to give them freedom and resources

This is a pretty handy shorthand to classify discourse, and since I've come up with it, I've started seeing Ursula Feminism everywhere.

"Women need to take self-defense classes and carry weapons to protect themselves from assault instead of relying on police"? Ursula

"My disabled 18 year old needs to be under guardianship so she won't be taken advantage of"? Ursula

"Look at this inspiring, empowering example of a successful businesswoman, who happens to make her money through sweatshop labor"? Ursula

** I could've made this whole post about young people getting into romantic relationships to escape abusive parents, and the risk of abuse in those relationships, and the dominant narrative of "This is why young people shouldn't get into romantic relationships" as opposed to "This is why young people need better options to escape from abusive parents and abusive partners".... but it was already too long.

** This post is about the Disney movie version of "The Little Mermaid." I already know how it differs from the book. WE ALREADY KNOW THAT. YOU ARE NOT SPECIAL FOR KNOWING THAT. ANYONE WHO RESPONDS WITH ANY VARIATION OF "Well, in the BOOK..." WILL BE SUMMARILY DROPKICKED.

Sanism

 

What is Sanism?

Sanism is a form of systemic and systematic discrimination and oppression of people who have been diagnosed with psychiatric disorders, or who have or are perceived to have mental differences or emotional distress.

What does sanism look like?
Discrimination in employment and housing
Conflating “mental illness” with violence
Involuntary holds on locked psych units
Forced-drugging
Restraint and Seclusion
Coercion into psychiatric treatment
Police violence
Targets of violence due to fear and hatred

50% of victims of police shootings are disabled. The majority of those have psychiatric diagnoses.

People diagnosed with psychiatric disorders are 12 times more likely to be the victims of assault than the general population.

Psychiatric and sexual abuse

 Some assorted thoughts of the day (CW: psychiatric abuse and sexual abuse) --

1. Psychiatric abuse (which for this purpose, I'm defining as any NONCONSENSUAL interference in a person's neurological or cognitive processes) is a profoundly intimate violation that is, at some level, a sexual or sexualized violation.

2. Mainstream society is more likely to recognize the sexualized implications of this when the victim is female rather than male (thus why drugging a nonconsenting woman's drink, for instance, is recognized as an implicitly sexual threat, while drugging a nonconsenting man's drink is not, even though of course it COULD be -- men are victims of date rape drugs too, after all).

3. However, psychiatric abuse is only commonly recognized as wrong and violating at all (including potentially sexually so) when the victims are neurotypical to begin with. This includes sexualized psychiatric abuse.

4. Forms of psychiatric abuse that would be recognized as not only abusive, but abusive in a specifically sexualized way (e.g. an adult training a child to accept physically painful expressions of physical affection by rewarding her when she passively accepts unwanted affection and punishing her when she refuses it) are therefore not recognized as either abusive or sexualized when the victims are disabled/neurodivergent people.

5. Medical and caregiving contexts are presumed to erase sexual intent, and thus erase the possibility of sexual abuse or sexualized physical or psychiatric abuse. This is included in children's education about sexual abuse, e.g. "No one should touch your bathing suit area* except a doctor."

6. Because disabled people are perpetually considered "patients" (as evidenced by nonsensical terms like "Down Syndrome patients"), all interactions between disabled people and typical people (especially those in helping or caregiver roles) are given the presumption of nonsexual intent (and thus, potential for sexual or sexualized physical/psychiatric abuse is presumed erased). Some advocates have attributed this to the fact that disabled people are desexualized, and this is certainly a big part of it, but it's also that the caregiver role is desexualized.

7. I realize this is a dangerous point to be making, because ALREADY too much discussion of potentially-sexualized medical abuse is derailed by arguments about whether it's sexual rather than about whether it's abuse. Any medical, physical, or psychiatric abuse is abuse, regardless of sexual intent or lack thereof. But also, separately -- sometimes it's sexual.

8. A sexualized violation can occur without the perpetrator necessarily having sexual intent. Forcibly drugging an abled, neurotypical woman without her consent is recognized as a sexualized violation, even if the perpetrator does not do so with sexual intent. There's no reason not rooted in oppression that equivalent violations of disabled people (and, to a lesser extent, of abled neurotypical men) are not seen as similarly sexualized violations.

*Side note: When did "bathing suit area" get to be the preferred euphemism here? It's weird.