Jean-Francois Gariepy's unnamed autistic girlfriend

 This story is from 2018, but it was brought to my attention by Autistic Right-Wing Watch, and I can find no more recent updates on the woman involved, who isn't even named (because disabled women don't merit names).

The short version: Jean-Francois Gariepy is an openly fascist Canadian media personality. As a fascist, he advocates a political system in which people of color, women, disabled people, queer people, and others, are stripped of their human rights. His ideology makes him morally reprehensible, but for the rest of this post, we're going to take that as read, because this story has even more layers.

In 2016, while involved in a contested divorce with his ex-wife, Gariepy was looking for a new woman to marry him and have a child with him very quickly. This might have been an attempt to secure a U.S. visa, or might have been a desire to make more white babies in accordance with his fascist ideology, or might even have been about honestly seeking love and family. It might have been some combination of these; we don't know and ultimately, it doesn't matter. One way or another, he began a romantic relationship with a 19 year old woman from Texas, and they planned to get married.

The problem was that the woman -- whose name, I repeat, is not included in any of the publicly available writing about her -- is autistic, and therefore, her basic autonomy and human rights are always conditional upon the approval of others. Eloping with a stranger was not approved-of behavior. Therefore, her parents attempted to strip her of her human rights by pursuing guardianship of her.

Adults under guardianship have virtually no legal rights, much like minor children. They are not allowed to travel, communicate, or engage in relationships without their guardians' permission. They are not allowed to make their own medical decisions, and are often forcibly drugged. They are not allowed to control their own finances, and may be forced to work in subminimum wage sweatshops. It is an inherently abusive legal institution. There is never a situation in which adult guardianship is ever morally acceptable. Yet, it continues to be legal, and relatively uncontroversial.

As Gariepy's unnamed girlfriend shows, having the outward measures of being considered "high functioning" (she was a high school graduate who used spoken and written language) is no protection. Her parents got a counselor to attest that she had the "maturity" of a 10 year old, and therefore, a judge stripped her of her rights in one fell swoop.

The sad irony is that under Gariepy's proposed political vision, she, as a disabled woman, would also be stripped of all human rights. But the actualization of her dehumanization occurred not in his idealized fascist state, but in the supposed liberal democracy of the U.S. And the majority of people who (rightly!) oppose Gariepy's bigoted, authoritarian ideology are nonetheless perfectly fine with bigoted authoritarianism against disabled adults, so long as they can pretend it's designed to "protect" them.

Age is also a relevant axis -- fascist men tend to prefer women significantly younger than themselves as partners, believing younger women to be both more fertile and "weaker" and more easily dominated. Anti-fascists, meanwhile, accept this worldview uncritically, and instead posit that young adults are really still children with "immature brains," and that older adults (fascist or otherwise) who enter romantic relationships with younger adults are "pedophiles" who are "grooming" their young adult partners. Neither side is at all supportive of the right of young adults to be autonomous and make their own choices (of romantic partners or anything else). Neurobigotry and ageism are closely intertwined, as I've written about often on this page, as even neurotypical young adults are stripped of rights on the basis that they might "turn" neurodivergent at any moment, and neurodivergent young adults are never allowed to be recognized as autonomous adults at all.

A truly liberatory anti-fascist politic must reject all forms of authoritarianism, bigotry, and oppression, including adult guardianship in all its forms. Every individual is inherently competent to self-knowledge and deserving of the sacrosanct right of autonomy, self-expression, and reproductive justice. We must build a legal system in which autistic 19 year olds are free to date, marry, and (if they choose) have children with anyone they choose, and build a culture in which fascist, bigoted, authoritarian ideas, whether overtly, like Gariepy's, or covertly, like the idea that disabled adults have a "mental age" lower than their actual age, are completely anathema to cultural norms and values.

Article: https://www.thedailybeast.com/alt-right-youtuber-accused-of-luring-autistic-teen-in-pregnancy-plot

Behind the screen

 There's been a lot of emphasis lately on casting actors who match their characters' underrepresented identities -- disabled actors as disabled characters, queer actors as queer characters, etc.

In general, I think this is a good and necessary thing, both because it prevents underrepresented actors from being shut out of the industry, and because it generally adds a layer of depth and realism to the characters in question.

The problem I see is when casting, and casting alone, is seen as the one solution to the problems of minority underrepresentation and, equally as crucially, misrepresentation. Actors do not necessarily have much power over their scripts, stories, or character arcs. We need diverse representation not only among actors, but also among writers, directors, producers, and all the other people involved in a creative project.

When creators do cast an actor who matches the character's identity, this low bar is often used as a shield against criticism of the story's writing or the character's depiction "It's a (X) actor, so it's okay" becomes a variation of "My (X) friend said it was okay." Asking an actor of the targeted group to star in hate propaganda against her isn't an improvement; it's just finding someone desperate enough to degrade herself on screen. Casting disabled actors, for example, will not save stories whose central messages are "Disabled people should just die," "Disabled people are burdens on their families," "Disabled people lack inner depth," or "Disabled people are incompetent to make decisions about their own lives."

Yes, keep demanding that underrepresented actors be cast. Also demand that marginalized people be writers, directors, producers, and other people in the creative process. Also demand that stories humanize and advocate the liberation, not the oppression, of marginalized people.

Sarah Zhang

 It’s been a while since I attacked an article from #TheAtlantic, so, time to get back into old habits!

Sarah Zhang’s “The Last Children of Down Syndrome” isn’t the worst take I’ve ever read -- elimination of disabled people is not depicted as an unqualified good; anti-eugenics disability advocates are quoted; the fact that Down Syndrome is not a life-threatening condition was acknowledged. This is an incredibly low bar for an article that was, once again, about us, without us. Zero people with Down Syndrome were interviewed. Zhang sat and talked to the mother of a man with Down Syndrome while ignoring the man himself, who was right there. Disabled people are not extensions of their parents. If Zhang had interviewed some DS people themselves, she might have avoided some other extremely basic flaws in the article.

Zhang describes parents “mourning” their image of “the child whom they were going to walk down the aisle, who was going to graduate from college, who was going to become president.” She acknowledges that none of these things are guaranteed with any child, but doesn’t mention that they’re also entirely possible for DS people as well, even though later in the same article, she references DS people going to college. They can also get married! And run for office! Or choose to do none of those things, if they don’t want to! She also notes that “Most people with Down syndrome learn to read and write. Others are nonverbal.” This is technically accurate, but misleading. “Nonverbal” literally means “without words” (therefore, a person who reads and writes is not nonverbal), but is more commonly used to mean “nonspeaking,” which is an entirely different skill. It would be more accurate to say: Most DS people (like most 21st century people in general) communicate with both spoken and written language. Some use only written language, but not spoken. Some use only spoken language, but not written. Some use neither spoken nor written language. The important point I’m making by being pedantic, here, is that speech is not a prerequisite for reading and writing. Plenty of people can read and write, but not speak. A major barrier to education and opportunities for disabled people is the common assumption that learning has to come in “typical” chronological order, but it’s not at all unusual for neurodivergent kids to learn “more advanced” skills like reading and writing, before they learn “easier” skills like speaking.

As an example of the supposed tragedy of “nonverbal” DS people, one mother says she wishes she’d aborted her now six year old, because he hits and bites her. Setting aside that plenty of “normal,” abled six year olds hit and bite, Zhang takes the mother’s word for it on the cause and effect relationship -- kid bites mom, therefore mom wishes kid had never been born -- when an equally plausible (I would guess, more plausible) mechanism is the reverse: mom wishes kid had never been born, therefore, kid responds to the stress of having his existence resented by biting his mom.

Fundamentally and repeatedly, Zhang refuses to consider the possibility that the state of being unwanted, either by family or by society as a whole, is, in and of itself, detrimental to DS people and other disabled people. She mentions that reducing the number of DS children being born could harm existing DS people due to fewer resources being available, which is a vague and tenuous connection, but not the more pertinent harm -- a society in which a majority of the population wishes a minority group to not exist is inherently hostile to that minority group. Zhang uncritically accepts the talking point that Denmark is a good place for DS people to live, but that is self-evidently not true. Would you feel welcome in a society in which most people actively wanted to ensure that their children wouldn’t be like you? Would you feel welcome in a country that discouraged or forbade disabled people from moving there (that’s almost all countries, not just Denmark)? You can’t expect to receive equal opportunity from people who think your existence is an unfortunate glitch. You can’t be an equal citizen in a country that considers preventing people like you a valid public good. Disabled people can’t have equal rights until the societies we live in abandon the entire premise that one combination of chromosomes, genes, body parts, or brain cells, is somehow better or worse than another.

Article: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/the-last-children-of-down-syndrome/616928

Yes, everyone else should have to suffer

Yes, everyone else should have to suffer.

A common argument against equal rights for disabled people is an appeal to the suffering of the majority. Not just disabled people -- the same argument is used about equal rights for linguistic, racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities, and really, any minority population, but for this post, I'm mostly talking about disabled people.

So, if a classroom, neighborhood, or community has one disabled person, and many abled people, should everyone else have to suffer for one person? Should the needs of 30 abled students have to suffer to include one disabled student? Should a hundred abled residents have their lives disrupted by one disabled neighbor? Shouldn't the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Isn't it better to exclude one than to make everyone else suffer?

The response I usually give is: Inclusion and rights aren't zero-sum. Minority inclusion doesn't make the majority suffer. What benefits us also benefits you. Rising tide lifts all boats. In fact, the majority population benefits in many tangible and intangible ways from the contributions of a minority population, even a minority of one. We're all in this together, no one is coming for you.

But here's my real answer: Yes. Yes, if someone else's existence, someone else's inclusion, or someone else's rights cause everyone else to suffer, then, yes, everyone else should suffer. Our right to exist outweighs your right to escape suffering. If our existence or our rights causes you suffering, then suffer. Suffer until you get used to it, because we're not going anywhere. We don't have to justify our rights by proving that our existence or our rights also benefit you in some way. We exist. We have a right to exist. Die mad about it.

Family burdens

 A point that's often overlooked in discourse about disabled people as "burdens" on their families is that, with a very few exceptions (all of which necessitate the consent of the family member), family members are not required to contribute, financially or otherwise, to the upkeep of their disabled adult relatives.

With the exception of parents/guardians of minor children, family members of patients aren't billed for patients' medical care. Patients are.

Nothing requires anyone to spend any money on their adult relatives, disabled or otherwise.

Nothing requires anyone to expend any effort on -- or even be in contact with -- their adult relatives, disabled or otherwise.

A common argument for killing disabled people is that our family members go broke paying for our medical care. But they don't have to. I don't mean "In a decent society, medical care would be free at point of use," although that's true too; I mean, literally, no one is forcing you to accept responsibility for your disabled relative's medical bills.

A common argument for incarcerating disabled people in nursing homes or other institutions is that disabled people's parents, siblings, or adult children shouldn't have to care for them.

That's true. They shouldn't.

And they don't.

Nothing requires family members of disabled people to be their relatives' caregiver or provider. Nothing stops family members of disabled people from cutting off their disabled relatives without a word, without a cent, without a by-your-leave.

Your disabled relative's existence does not impose any obligations on you, financial or otherwise. Your disabled relative's freedom to make their own choices does not cost you a cent or a minute of your time.

Now, this is the part where people say "Hey, I'm not a heartless monster! I'm not going to let Grandpa starve! Because no one else will help my disabled relative, of course I have to do it!"

This is true. Most people who aren't heartless and aren't completely estranged from their relatives do feel obligated to help family members in need, whether helping pay for medical or other expenses, or taking on the task of being an unpaid personal care attendant.

And that's a problem, and we need funding for services for disabled people so that they don't need to rely on their families, and families don't feel obligated to support their relatives.

However.

The responsibility, voluntarily undertaken, for helping a disabled relative, does not entitle anyone to override their relative's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness based on how it affects their family members.

You have a right to withhold help from your disabled relatives. You do not have a right to use help you offer as a justification for killing or imprisoning them.

You do not have to pay your disabled relative's medical bills. You do not have a right to assume their medical debt, then kill them because the bills are piling up.

You do not have to act as your relative's caregiver. You do not have a right to volunteer as your relative's caregiver, then cite the difficulty of the task as a justification for imprisoning them in an institution.

Disabled people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is absolute. You have the right to not help us, but you do not have the right to imprison us or kill us.