Policing social workers

 For those advocating that police be replaced with social workers in order to end police brutality, follow that thought through. Think about the cases of police brutality which have much of the population entirely rightly outraged. How exactly would these acts of brutality have been prevented if social workers had been deployed instead of police? What would social workers do differently? Exactly what power do you imagine social workers to have?

The solution to police brutality may be complex and multifaceted, but the first and simplest and most correct first step we can take is to simply stop sending authority figures after people who aren't directly, imminently, physically violating another human's rights.

Not replacing police with social workers. Not training police in bias and sensitivity. Just stopping the entire practice of sending authority figures after people who aren't directly, imminently, physically violating another human's rights.

If you see someone sleeping on the street, someone talking to themself, or someone speaking a different language, you can just... NOT call police. Not call a social worker. Not call anyone. Just leave them alone.

It's great to advocate funding for housing, shelters, and voluntary, consensual healthcare, but these services don't need to be administered in the form of reports made by third parties.

For all medical-model people scream about how "mental health is just like physical health!" no one calls police because someone at the bus stop has a rash, and if they did, the solution wouldn't be "replace police with dermatologists."

Everyone is expressing a different set of opinions about what to do about police brutality, and for the record, mine is "Fire 95% of police (including all with violence or racism allegations) and keep the remaining 5% for violence against human bodies only, then redirect the funding to voluntary non-gatekept healthcare and housing and transportation." But in no situation is replacing police with social workers an improvement. If you don't want police menacing innocent people, especially people of color, especially disabled people of color -- and quite right, you shouldn't want that, and it's high time people are realizing the status quo is unacceptable -- why do you want social workers menacing innocent disabled people of color either? Why do you want anyone menacing innocent disabled people of color? Why can you not fathom a world in which disabled people of color go about their lives freely and un-menaced?

Thinking about gender

 Cisgender people legitimately think "If I'd had the option to transition when I was young, I would have, and I'd regret it" is an actual argument against trans rights. Here's why it's not.

Firstly, and most importantly, people have a right to make choices about their own bodies and lives which they may regret. People have a right to make bad choices. People have a right to change their minds. Restricting people's autonomy and freedom to "protect" them from "regret" is tyrannical and wrong, period, no exceptions.

But secondly, and almost as importantly, people rarely transition on a whim. They think about it. And that's the real threat here: Thinking about it.

Most cisgender people feel in some way that we "don't fit" into our assigned gender roles, because, well, assigned gender roles don't really fit anyone. Transphobes have conjured a specter of danger that if gender transitioning is socially acceptable, all people who don't conform to the roles and stereotypes of their birth-assigned gender will be pressured into transitioning to the other binary gender, instead of being accepted as masculine cis girls or feminine cis boys.

But you know who is most accepting of gender non-conformity? The trans community. Most transgender people will be the first to affirm that men can wear dresses, women can grow beards, everyone can be any combination of masculine, feminine, both, or neither that feels right to them. The people telling cis boys who like pink that they're "not real boys" and cis girls who like trucks that they're "not real girls" are cis people, not trans people.

So the real risk isn't that the big scary Trans Agenda will forcibly conscript gender-non-conforming cis youth into its ranks. The real risk is that people will think about it. People will think about the idea that gender is socially constructed, not biological destiny. If trans people become more visible and socially accepted, no cisgender woman is going to go out and change her name and schedule SRS to her eternal regret just because she doesn't like makeup, and no trans person wants her to. But she might start thinking about gender. She might start thinking that she doesn't HAVE to be a woman. She can be a different gender. She can be a gender that isn't male or female. She can be more than one gender. She can be no gender. And after thinking about it, she might decide that actually, she's perfectly happy being a cisgender woman, and that's fine too. But she'll have thought about it. And that act of thinking about it puts just the tiniest crack in gender essentialism.

Trans people's rights are NOT about cis people's self-discovery journeys. Trans people deserve rights on their own merits. The correct argument for trans rights is "Because trans people are people, and all people deserve rights."

But I wanted to unpack this myth of the trans community somehow being a threat to gender-non-conforming cis people's identities, or that trans acceptance will somehow "seduce" the poor, confused gender-non-conforming cis people. It won't. But it will make people think more about the arbitrary nature of gender, and that's the real threat.

Specify "voluntary"

 If you are advocating more/ better/ better-funded mental health treatment, and you only mean the consensual kind, you need to say that. Unambiguously. Because especially in the context of criminal justice reform, alternatives to policing and incarcerations, and solutions to homelessness, "mental health treatment" is so often used as a euphemism for institutionalization and forced drugging that it can be assumed to mean that unless otherwise specified.

Material needs

 Disabled people need guaranteed legal rights and guaranteed material resources more than we need care, compassion, or community.

Disabled people deserve the material resources to live our lives even if no one loves us, cares about us, or includes us in their communities. This includes technology. This means that disabled people need readily accessible pre-prepared food, not community members to prepare food for us. Disabled people need accessible transit, not neighbors giving us rides. Disabled people need automatic dishwashers, washing machines, and dryers, not a supportive extended family to do our washing. Disabled people need wheelchair ramps and elevators, not helpful strangers carrying us. Disabled people need guaranteed incomes, healthcare, and housing, not charity or mutual aid.

Yes, it's nice that people do these things. But people who have no trouble comprehending "Yes, it's nice that the church hosted a bake sale for medical bills, but that's no substitute for universal healthcare" or "Yes, it's nice that they're babysitting their cousins' children, but that's no substitute for universal childcare" still seem to think that disabled people should settle for relying on the kindness of others to get our basic needs met.

And yes, disabled people ALSO deserve to be loved, to have friends, to participate in their communities. But our access to basic needs should not be dependent on this. Our access to medical treatment shouldn't be dependent on anyone's willingness to buy brownies, and our access to prepared food shouldn't be dependent on anyone's willingness to cook for us, and our access to housing shouldn't be dependent on anyone's willingness to build us special tiny houses in exchange for going to therapy.

Black Lives Matter

 Black Lives Matter is a disability issue.

Police brutality is a disability issue.

The trauma of living under siege is a disability issue.

Black Lives Matter.