Anti-stigma? Don't bother

 On those "anti-stigma" disclaimers, and why you shouldn't bother.

Whenever a particularly heinous murder is in the news -- particularly one of the many, all-too-common spree shootings that are endemic to American culture -- people blame "mental illness" and call for "mental health care" (usually involuntary) as the solution. This is not new, nor, unfortunately, noteworthy. People murder each other, and we get blamed. It is business as usual.

Lately, however, perhaps in response to criticisms of this ableist and neurobigoted narrative, some progressive advocates have started adding disclaimers to their statements about "mental illness" and "mental health care." Now, they've started tacking on "Of course, most Mentally Ill people are not violent" and "But we shouldn't stigmatize people with mental health issues." Box checked, criticisms deflected.

They needn't bother.

If you draw a rhetorical connection between violence and psychiatric disability, or advocate psychiatric treatment as violence prevention, you are harming psychiatrically disabled people. Period. No amount of "but not all" disclaimers will change that.

"But some Mentally Ill (TM) people ARE violent!"

Sure. Some psychiatrically disabled people are violent. So are some hazel-eyed people, some Scorpios, and some antique furniture enthusiasts. Some of any demographic are violent. None of these demographic memberships cause people to be violent, and none of these demographics should be categorically denied civil rights because some of them might be violent.

"But it's easier to access a gun than to access mental health care, and that's a problem!"

Well, that may or may not be true -- guns are pretty expensive, albeit a gun is a one-time expense unlike, say, a monthly co-pay for therapy or prescriptions -- but accepting that it is, yes, that is unjust. All forms of health care and disability support should be easily and freely available to all who want them. Health care is a human right. But why single out this form? Why single out the comparison to guns? It's also incredibly difficult in the U.S. to access a wheelchair, or hearing aids, or insulin. All these things are unjust. There is no reason to single out "mental health care" in particular except to imply that psychiatrically disabled people are uniquely prone to gun crimes.

There is no disability, neurodivergence, or type of brain that causes people to abuse or kill others. The choice to abuse or kill others is a choice, influenced by a person's beliefs, values, situation, culture, and societal influences -- all of which, yes, are filtered through the lens of the person's brain. But the brain is not the cause.

Even if a person's motive for murder is related to beliefs that stem from a neurodivergent way of perceiving the world, the brain difference is not causing the person to choose to pick up a weapon and act.

It is not enough to say that most psychiatrically disabled people are not violent. We must also say that most violence is committed by neurotypical people. Most beliefs that are used to justify violence are normal, neurotypical beliefs. Our society calls someone who hears and sees phenomena that others cannot "mentally ill," but the business owner who knowingly allows carcinogenic chemicals to leak into groundwater, the insurance executive who seeks ways to deny lifesaving treatments, the politician who advocates deporting refugees to near-certain death, the landlord who evicts tenants during a global pandemic, are all called "sane." Neurodivergence does not cause violence. Period. And neurodivergent people -- in this context of our national culture of violence, neurodivergent Americans -- deserve to be free from both the pervasive endemic violence that plagues our society, and the bigotry and oppression of being scapegoated for that violence.