Trigger Warning: EXTREME Ableism, presumptions of incompetence
I can't believe someone said this, and neither can they. Apparently if you need services, you do not have the right to sit on a panel about how to handle the disability you need services for, because you just need to take whatever the taxpayers think a cure is. Here's the thing: Taxpayers who want to cure something tend not to have any idea what scientifically could or could not be related to the thing they want to cure. Disabled people do tend to know, because keeping themselves safe requires knowing everything they possibly can about their disability.
Also, why are we assuming that worth is directly linked to the myth of independence? Oh, and does their argument mean that I can still refuse treatments? Because I don't pay specifically for the counselor I have at college, but said counselor is not BECAUSE of my being autistic, nor is it done through disability services. In fact, disability services doesn't even know I'm autistic, partially because I don't want to deal with anyone who might have that kind of opinion: There are exactly THREE teachers on campus who know: One I told when I melted down abroad on a trip he was running, one put the pieces together and asked, and one because I wrote my ``response paper" about ``Quiet Hands."
But seriously? That reaction specifically about my own situation might give the impression that I think there is some HF/LF dichotomy- it's supposed to be making the point that even the person who they might think is completely independent, really isn't. And if the taxpayer thinks about it, neither is he. So maybe he doesn't get to sit on a board about education, which is meant to cure his ignorance? And he doesn't get to sit on a panel about the road systems, which cure his lack of transportation?
Anyone who argues that you don't get to have an opinion and enforce that opinion on your own life because you are too involved in the subject needs to think about what that would mean if it were applied to other areas of their own lives.
I can't believe someone said this, and neither can they. Apparently if you need services, you do not have the right to sit on a panel about how to handle the disability you need services for, because you just need to take whatever the taxpayers think a cure is. Here's the thing: Taxpayers who want to cure something tend not to have any idea what scientifically could or could not be related to the thing they want to cure. Disabled people do tend to know, because keeping themselves safe requires knowing everything they possibly can about their disability.
Also, why are we assuming that worth is directly linked to the myth of independence? Oh, and does their argument mean that I can still refuse treatments? Because I don't pay specifically for the counselor I have at college, but said counselor is not BECAUSE of my being autistic, nor is it done through disability services. In fact, disability services doesn't even know I'm autistic, partially because I don't want to deal with anyone who might have that kind of opinion: There are exactly THREE teachers on campus who know: One I told when I melted down abroad on a trip he was running, one put the pieces together and asked, and one because I wrote my ``response paper" about ``Quiet Hands."
But seriously? That reaction specifically about my own situation might give the impression that I think there is some HF/LF dichotomy- it's supposed to be making the point that even the person who they might think is completely independent, really isn't. And if the taxpayer thinks about it, neither is he. So maybe he doesn't get to sit on a board about education, which is meant to cure his ignorance? And he doesn't get to sit on a panel about the road systems, which cure his lack of transportation?
Anyone who argues that you don't get to have an opinion and enforce that opinion on your own life because you are too involved in the subject needs to think about what that would mean if it were applied to other areas of their own lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I reserve the right to delete comments for personal attacks, derailing, dangerous comparisons, bigotry, and generally not wanting my blog to be a platform for certain things.