So it turns out that I suck at keeping up with things.
Remeber that cookbook thing project my friend is doing?
Yeah, so it's apparently moving forward.
Like waaay forward.
It got itself a blog! There are first drafts of recipes!
There is a tumblr! (Although the tumblr seem to be new.)
This is all so exciting!
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
In which Anonymus Maximus talks about Identity and Words
Three things:
First: Autistic v. person with autism. Seems somewhat petty an issue to take a stand on, no?
Person first versus identity first language when talking about autistic people is really not important. It seems rather inconsequential, even. Except in all the ways it is important.
Part of the thing is that Autistic people are routinely denied self-determination. And like the Deaf and Blind communities, Autistics went with the idea that you cannot disentangle the person from the autism. See, everything I do is coloured by autism, because autism is pervasive, but not everything (nothing, really) I do is only autism.
And most of us don't care about how others identify. What does raise our hackles is when we get told by others how we are supposed to talk about ourselves. What others telling us to call ourselves mean is This person denies me my right to identify myself. It means This person denies my self-determination.
And this is why we tend to take a stand on it.
Not because it matters, but because it matters.
Secondly: A while back [Anonymus exchanged the awareness of time and scales and movement for the constant awareness of all textures.] there was a short, light hearted discussion among some autistics on tumblr - centering around "I wish more disability communities would do identity first language." and I have things to say. Not very nice things.
I know that we have good reasons for identity first language. We have arguments, and essays and well thought out responses as to why identity first. We had a discussion and as a community came to the consensus of identity first.
Thing is, so do the communities who prefer person first. They have arguments and essays and well thought out responses. They had a discussion. And their consensus was person first.
And we want our choice of identity first to be respected. We want our self-determination to be respected. We want our self-identification to be upheld.
So do they.
So lets not talk about hypothetical ways in which it would be better for other communities to change how they identify. Instead, lets respect their choice, and keep telling others to respect ours.
Lastly: A lot of "correct" ways to talk about disability is using a language that minimizes non-disabled peoples discomfort. And then I spend a lot of time laughing so that I won't cry.
Who on god's green earth thought it was a good idea to name the self-advocacy curriculum in the special ed. programme:
Difability.
Difability.
I challenge you to attempt to say this out loud and NOT sound as if you are mocking someone with a lisp.
Difability.
First: Autistic v. person with autism. Seems somewhat petty an issue to take a stand on, no?
Person first versus identity first language when talking about autistic people is really not important. It seems rather inconsequential, even. Except in all the ways it is important.
Part of the thing is that Autistic people are routinely denied self-determination. And like the Deaf and Blind communities, Autistics went with the idea that you cannot disentangle the person from the autism. See, everything I do is coloured by autism, because autism is pervasive, but not everything (nothing, really) I do is only autism.
And most of us don't care about how others identify. What does raise our hackles is when we get told by others how we are supposed to talk about ourselves. What others telling us to call ourselves mean is This person denies me my right to identify myself. It means This person denies my self-determination.
And this is why we tend to take a stand on it.
Not because it matters, but because it matters.
Secondly: A while back [Anonymus exchanged the awareness of time and scales and movement for the constant awareness of all textures.] there was a short, light hearted discussion among some autistics on tumblr - centering around "I wish more disability communities would do identity first language." and I have things to say. Not very nice things.
I know that we have good reasons for identity first language. We have arguments, and essays and well thought out responses as to why identity first. We had a discussion and as a community came to the consensus of identity first.
Thing is, so do the communities who prefer person first. They have arguments and essays and well thought out responses. They had a discussion. And their consensus was person first.
And we want our choice of identity first to be respected. We want our self-determination to be respected. We want our self-identification to be upheld.
So do they.
So lets not talk about hypothetical ways in which it would be better for other communities to change how they identify. Instead, lets respect their choice, and keep telling others to respect ours.
Lastly: A lot of "correct" ways to talk about disability is using a language that minimizes non-disabled peoples discomfort. And then I spend a lot of time laughing so that I won't cry.
Who on god's green earth thought it was a good idea to name the self-advocacy curriculum in the special ed. programme:
Difability and Life?
Difability.
Difability.
I challenge you to attempt to say this out loud and NOT sound as if you are mocking someone with a lisp.
Difability.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
In which Anonymus Maximus is heretical and talks about God
For the record: I wish this were more eloquent. But I can’t, because my sense of religion isn’t in English. I don’t believe in god, and I don’t think I ever did.
I get weird when I talk about religion. I get weird when I talk about spirituality. I get weird when I talk about God.
Monday, August 19, 2013
In which Anonymus Maximus talks about a friends project - the Bad Brains Cookbook
So I made a list the other day, noting down how difficult it can be to make a sandwich. [Hi, everyone, btw! That post has pulled a third of my blogs total traffic at this point in time, and I suspect it is Crown of Weeds' fault!]
Now, I have this friend, Inya. She is a quite remarkable woman, and I care for her deeply. She also makes the most delicious cakes, and is, as she has stated, better than I am at sequencing recipes.
She wants to make The Bad Brains Cookbook. Which I think it awesome. Go and read about it! Now!
And in case you didn't, effectively this:
Doesn't that sound absolutely amazing?!
And she wants this to be available for free when done. The thing is, though, that there need to be an interest, and people would have to have use for it.
So go tell her! In the comments or something.
Spread the word, cooking instructions for bad brains by bad brains!
Added October 3: The Bad Brains Cookbook is happening! And this is very exciting! Check it out at badbrainscookbook.blogspot.com!
Now, I have this friend, Inya. She is a quite remarkable woman, and I care for her deeply. She also makes the most delicious cakes, and is, as she has stated, better than I am at sequencing recipes.
She wants to make The Bad Brains Cookbook. Which I think it awesome. Go and read about it! Now!
And in case you didn't, effectively this:
...hyper-sequenced recipes, an attempt at making a collection of recipes in less than 5, 10 and 20 steps, where getting the ingredient counts as a step. With visual aids and diagraming, with better instructions than vauge sensory ques, at the very least noting how things are supposed to smell and look and sound and taste and feel when done.
Doesn't that sound absolutely amazing?!
And she wants this to be available for free when done. The thing is, though, that there need to be an interest, and people would have to have use for it.
So go tell her! In the comments or something.
Spread the word, cooking instructions for bad brains by bad brains!
Added October 3: The Bad Brains Cookbook is happening! And this is very exciting! Check it out at badbrainscookbook.blogspot.com!
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
In which Anonymus Maximus talks about Executive Dysfunction and Food.
The thing about being Clinically Quirky is that it makes life harder than baseline.
It might mean you have no energy, it might mean your memory doesn't necessarily function in a reliable fashion, it means, it means time is confusing and without meaning, it means that you want to do things but can't make yourself start, it means you have difficulties seeing the point of doing things, it means sequencing things is difficult, and too many steps seem to fall in an unorganised pile around you and the thought of sorting it out is just too overwhelming. It means that you don't know where to start. It means that you don't know that a thing needs doing.
Do you guys know how hard it is to make a sandwich?
That is 40 steps. I am by no means saying that it is always this hard, and always translates to all these steps. But on a bad day? On a bad day there are more. The step remeber where the bread goes is in there. The step remember what goes on bread is in there. And this is just for a piece of bread, with some butter, cheese and cucumber on it. The bread isn't even toasted.
Do you realise how hard it can be to make a sandwich?
So when Anonymus Maximus and Partner have the following conversation, Partner think they are being helpful:
And they are. They are reminding me that the soloution to being hungry is to eat, and that one thing one can eat is a sandwich, which is also a good thing. But it is nowhere near as simple as "go make a sandwich".
And sometimes I think there should be a better way of getting people to understand executive dysfunction than writing out the steps they think are intuitive.
This isn't a problem just for autistic people and the autistic cousin diagnoses. Although ADHD is pretty much defined by executive dysfunction, and SPD seems related to executive dysfunction on top of making it difficult to feel hunger, it also concerns depression, OCD, any form of disordered eating, heck, even migraines. Most forms of badbrains, if we're honest.
Lastly: The way I self-accomodate this problem is to make these lists. The ones that look absurd, with far too detailed instructions on how to do things. Because I can do them when I have spoons. And I can use them when I don't have spoons, because they tell me exactly what to do, and in what order.
Added August 21: Since posting this, a friend of mine has actually started on a project, The Bad Brains Cookbook, cooking for folks with executive dysfunction issues. Go check it out!
Added October 3: The Bad Brains Cookbook has a blog of it's own! Over at badbrainscookbook.blogspot.com!
It might mean you have no energy, it might mean your memory doesn't necessarily function in a reliable fashion, it means, it means time is confusing and without meaning, it means that you want to do things but can't make yourself start, it means you have difficulties seeing the point of doing things, it means sequencing things is difficult, and too many steps seem to fall in an unorganised pile around you and the thought of sorting it out is just too overwhelming. It means that you don't know where to start. It means that you don't know that a thing needs doing.
Do you guys know how hard it is to make a sandwich?
- Realise that you are hungry.
- Figure out that the soloution to this is to eat.
- Disentangle yourself from the current activity.
- Relocate to location with foodmaking capacity.
- Think of something to eat.
- Decide what to eat.
- Think of what is needed to make that thing.
- Remember all parts that go into it.
- Locate bread.
- Open cupboard - get bread.
- Close cupboard.
- Get cutting board.
- Get knife with serrated edge.
- Cut bread.
- Open fridge.
- Get butter.
- Get cheese.
- Get cucumber.
- Close fridge.
- Get butter knife.
- Spread butter on bread slices.
- Get cheese slicer.
- Estimate number of cheese slices required.
- Slice cheese.
- Place cheese on bread.
- Get quick peeler.
- Estimate number of cucumber slices required.
- Slice cucumber.
- Place cucumber on bread.
- Put lid back on butter.
- Put cheese back into its container.
- Put cucumber into bag.
- Open fridge.
- Put all chilled foodstuffs back.
- Close fridge.
- Open cupboard.
- Get plate.
- Put bread back into cupboard.
- Put sandwich onto plate.
- Store away the dishes.
That is 40 steps. I am by no means saying that it is always this hard, and always translates to all these steps. But on a bad day? On a bad day there are more. The step remeber where the bread goes is in there. The step remember what goes on bread is in there. And this is just for a piece of bread, with some butter, cheese and cucumber on it. The bread isn't even toasted.
Do you realise how hard it can be to make a sandwich?
So when Anonymus Maximus and Partner have the following conversation, Partner think they are being helpful:
AM: "I'm hungry."
P: "Go make a sandwich."
And they are. They are reminding me that the soloution to being hungry is to eat, and that one thing one can eat is a sandwich, which is also a good thing. But it is nowhere near as simple as "go make a sandwich".
And sometimes I think there should be a better way of getting people to understand executive dysfunction than writing out the steps they think are intuitive.
This isn't a problem just for autistic people and the autistic cousin diagnoses. Although ADHD is pretty much defined by executive dysfunction, and SPD seems related to executive dysfunction on top of making it difficult to feel hunger, it also concerns depression, OCD, any form of disordered eating, heck, even migraines. Most forms of badbrains, if we're honest.
Lastly: The way I self-accomodate this problem is to make these lists. The ones that look absurd, with far too detailed instructions on how to do things. Because I can do them when I have spoons. And I can use them when I don't have spoons, because they tell me exactly what to do, and in what order.
Added August 21: Since posting this, a friend of mine has actually started on a project, The Bad Brains Cookbook, cooking for folks with executive dysfunction issues. Go check it out!
Added October 3: The Bad Brains Cookbook has a blog of it's own! Over at badbrainscookbook.blogspot.com!
Thursday, July 4, 2013
In which Anonymus Maximus echo echo echo.
Sometimes, I don't know how to make sense. Sometimes I think thoughts that I cannot communicate, because I do not yet have the words. [It is all shapes and colours and movement. Smells and sounds, strange music and emotive experience that differs from the norm. Case Law is the edge of a deep purple spiders web. Happy is a spinning-spinning-spinning sensation.] And then I need to find something to echo, modify a script. See what happens in the echo chamber.
This is one of those times:
I'm talking about communication tonight. This might take a while, but let me see if I can get my point across.
I have so many metaphors and phrases for communication. For different aspects of communication. For language and concepts and meanings and communication. For words.
I don't word very well. I echo echo echo.
And sometimes I do original speech, and that in itself is an echo.
Echo echo echo.
Speech is the vocalized form of human communication. It is based upon the syntactic combination of lexicals and names that are drawn from very large vocabularies. Speech is also an American composer. Avant-garde, I'm told.
Sometimes language is too much and not enough, all at the same time. I don't word very well. Words are inefficient.
Echo echo echo.
Words are shorthands for concepts. I communicate in concepts. In ideas. In structures. And I rarely use my own words to do it. Echolalia is metalanguage. And this is an echo echo echo. Words are an elaborate metaphor.
Echo echo echo.
Error message: Duplicate comment detected: it looks like you’ve already said that!
Scripts to smooth interactions with a largely allistic world. Scripts to handle those who can't tolerate my communication. Scripts, because why not? What can I get you - fine thank you. There are some stumbles, when people forget their lines, veers off script. If you learn how to prompt them back on, things will work out.
I know, right?!
Echo echo echo.
I am on Tumblr. I wasn't on tumblr, and then I was, and I wasn't because I was a little bit afraid of tumblr, and then I was and I was still a little bit afraid of tumblr, and then I realised that tumblr is really just glorified echolalia and then I wasn't afraid.
Because.
Echo echo echo.
Tell me a joke and make me smile.
Absolutely no decorum, whatsoever.
Echo echo echo.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
In which Anonymus Maximus talks about Friendship, Internalised ableism, and also uses the r-word
The reason I'm suddenly producing content here is that I'm back in school-school*, in a field I have no previous experience with, and I am procrastinating doing the reading. Mostly because the reading says "theory" and means "model", "theory" and means "hypothesis", "theory" and means "framework", and "theory" and means "process". This is upsetting to me.
Unrelated to that, [or actually, somewhat related] I'm thinking about dogmatic ideology and internalised ableism.
I have a friend [a friend? Aren't you autistic?], one might even say a best friend.
My best friend is also autistic. Or rather, my best friend happens to be a person with Asperger's, and does identify as "aspie" in relation to accomodations. She will agree that she has ~issues~ and requires accomodation. At times, she -demands- accomodation at the cost of others. [We have quite incompatible access needs, which is why this is annoying to me.] Her accomodations are always judged as more important than mine. [And this goes to the idea that we are all centres of our own universe, that I prioritise myself and she's prioritising herself isn't something strange to me.]
She is an aspie, in that she opposed the removal of the Asperger's Syndrome diagnostic lable from the DSM, and refuse to be refered to, or think of herself as 'autistic', or a 'person with autism', or even 'on the autism spectrum'. Why? Because 'autism' evokes a different image in the mind of society than 'aspie' does. It is very much "I'm fine, not like those icky autistics" ("but you still need to accomodate me. But you know, I don't drool. I'm not retarded.").
As you might notice, our opinions are very different, and at times directly opposed to eachother.
And I get it. The popular stereotype about autism is not all that flattering. And I'm saying this as someone who does drool, and rocks and sits in corners and infodumps and doesn't do eyecontact and flaps and generally is very visibly disabled. I still don't get coded as autistic though, because most people read me as a woman. Popular opinion is that autistics need to be cured. That we lack self-awareness. That we don't even know that we are different. That we can't communicate, that we don't think.
It's insulting. But I can't help but wonder. Isn't it better to change the popular conception of autism, than to retreat into aspie elitism?
Dogmatic ideology would say that I can't be friends with her. Let alone -best- friends. See, we disagree on something that is very fundamental to me, Autistic pride, Autistic culture and disability activism. She is evil because she has internalised what society thinks about autism, and is now in an attempt to maintain her sense of self distancing herself from the image. She isn't autistic, she has Asperger's.
And to make matters worse, she has internalised the disability activism movements opinions and views. I can't count the number of times disability activists have argued against ableism with "[...] not a retard!". Dammit Jim, I'm a wheelchair user, not a retard.
I'm not surpirsed or confused by the existence of aspie elitism. If the disability rights movement continues to throw I/DD people under the bus because it might give physically disabled people a better life, we'll keep getting aspies that don't want to be considered autistic. Knowing that you have internalised ableism doesn't make you miraculously overcome it. Harmful prejudice in society is insidious. I don't have a point here. I'm just thinking.
Popular discourse makes a point of not giving I/DD people full humanity.
But we are all more than that. Things are more complicated. I love my friend, we have fun together.
We make awesome things happen. I can agree to disagree.
Sometimes.
*As opposed to at-work/placement-in-industry - school, as I usually am.
Unrelated to that, [or actually, somewhat related] I'm thinking about dogmatic ideology and internalised ableism.
I have a friend [a friend? Aren't you autistic?], one might even say a best friend.
My best friend is also autistic. Or rather, my best friend happens to be a person with Asperger's, and does identify as "aspie" in relation to accomodations. She will agree that she has ~issues~ and requires accomodation. At times, she -demands- accomodation at the cost of others. [We have quite incompatible access needs, which is why this is annoying to me.] Her accomodations are always judged as more important than mine. [And this goes to the idea that we are all centres of our own universe, that I prioritise myself and she's prioritising herself isn't something strange to me.]
She is an aspie, in that she opposed the removal of the Asperger's Syndrome diagnostic lable from the DSM, and refuse to be refered to, or think of herself as 'autistic', or a 'person with autism', or even 'on the autism spectrum'. Why? Because 'autism' evokes a different image in the mind of society than 'aspie' does. It is very much "I'm fine, not like those icky autistics" ("but you still need to accomodate me. But you know, I don't drool. I'm not retarded.").
As you might notice, our opinions are very different, and at times directly opposed to eachother.
And I get it. The popular stereotype about autism is not all that flattering. And I'm saying this as someone who does drool, and rocks and sits in corners and infodumps and doesn't do eyecontact and flaps and generally is very visibly disabled. I still don't get coded as autistic though, because most people read me as a woman. Popular opinion is that autistics need to be cured. That we lack self-awareness. That we don't even know that we are different. That we can't communicate, that we don't think.
It's insulting. But I can't help but wonder. Isn't it better to change the popular conception of autism, than to retreat into aspie elitism?
Dogmatic ideology would say that I can't be friends with her. Let alone -best- friends. See, we disagree on something that is very fundamental to me, Autistic pride, Autistic culture and disability activism. She is evil because she has internalised what society thinks about autism, and is now in an attempt to maintain her sense of self distancing herself from the image. She isn't autistic, she has Asperger's.
And to make matters worse, she has internalised the disability activism movements opinions and views. I can't count the number of times disability activists have argued against ableism with "[...] not a retard!". Dammit Jim, I'm a wheelchair user, not a retard.
I'm not surpirsed or confused by the existence of aspie elitism. If the disability rights movement continues to throw I/DD people under the bus because it might give physically disabled people a better life, we'll keep getting aspies that don't want to be considered autistic. Knowing that you have internalised ableism doesn't make you miraculously overcome it. Harmful prejudice in society is insidious. I don't have a point here. I'm just thinking.
Popular discourse makes a point of not giving I/DD people full humanity.
But we are all more than that. Things are more complicated. I love my friend, we have fun together.
We make awesome things happen. I can agree to disagree.
Sometimes.
*As opposed to at-work/placement-in-industry - school, as I usually am.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
In which Anonymus Maximus is a self-narrating zoo exhibit and considers the PoliteYeti Autism Criteria
It was going around Tumblr a while ago, checking yourself off against the, by PoliteYeti, Autistic defined diagnostic criteria for autism.
Bolding the ones I have, italics if I'm not sure, comments in brackets, if applicable.
A. Differences in perception (at least 3)
1. Sensory defensiveness (ie, complaints or avoidance of any of the following: loud noises or places, bright lights, textures (food or object/clothing), tastes, smells, touch)
2. Sensory seeking (ie, stims or stimming behaviour such as rocking, flapping, finger flicking, hair twirling, spinning objects, etc or actively desiring any of the following: deep pressure or touch, vestibular sensation [swings, spinning in any context, etc], specific smells, tastes, or textures)
3. Auditory processing difficulties
4. Unusual, awkward, or delayed motor skills, or asymmetry between gross and fine motor skills (ie, clumsy but with strong fine motor skills, good gross motor skills with poor hand-writing or table skills, strong skills in a special-interest related area but poor overall [such as an ability to manipulate small objects but poor handwriting])
5. A reduced or lack of conscious awareness and/or use of allistic (not autistic) nonverbal behaviour and communication such as facial expression, gesture, and posture. This criterion should not exclude persons who have learnt to read or otherwise comprehend nonverbal behaviour by rote learning, particularly adults. Intentional learning to overcome an inherent difficulty in comprehension is supportive of this criterion. It should also not exclude persons who have been taught to use nonverbals to be less visibly different. In such cases, internal report of difficulty should take precedence over apparent behaviour.
B. Differences in cognition (at least 3, one of which must be 1 or 2)
1. Difficulty in beginning or ending (at least 1):
4. Asymmetry of cognitive skills[Executive dysfunction galore, and I have, literally, two ADLs.]
5. Talents in any pattern recognition, including music, mathematics, specific language structures, puzzles, and art (any one meets this criterion, not all must be present)
6. A tendency to focus on details instead of the broader picture, across contexts.
C. These differences cause impairment and/or distress in at least one context (ie, school, work, home), which may be variable over time. Impairment or distress may be defined variably, including meltdowns, anxiety, depression, a pervasive sense of not fitting in, and compulsive behaviours. It is necessary to remember that while the symptoms are not necessarily disabling in themselves, the social response to these symptoms can be disabling. The impairment or distress may be historical, with appropriate evidence to support this claim (ie, a documented history of meltdowns as a child, and only mild anxiety as an adult), as distress may decrease over time and with education.
D. Symptoms should be present in early childhood [I suppose, considering childhood diagnosis, but what do I know?], but may not be noticable until social demands outpace compensatory skills, at any age. [Like many of us, I was diagnosed at a rather young age, but wasn't -told- about my dx until far older. By that time I had figured it out on my own.]
Bolding the ones I have, italics if I'm not sure, comments in brackets, if applicable.
A. Differences in perception (at least 3)
1. Sensory defensiveness (ie, complaints or avoidance of any of the following: loud noises or places, bright lights, textures (food or object/clothing), tastes, smells, touch)
2. Sensory seeking (ie, stims or stimming behaviour such as rocking, flapping, finger flicking, hair twirling, spinning objects, etc or actively desiring any of the following: deep pressure or touch, vestibular sensation [swings, spinning in any context, etc], specific smells, tastes, or textures)
3. Auditory processing difficulties
4. Unusual, awkward, or delayed motor skills, or asymmetry between gross and fine motor skills (ie, clumsy but with strong fine motor skills, good gross motor skills with poor hand-writing or table skills, strong skills in a special-interest related area but poor overall [such as an ability to manipulate small objects but poor handwriting])
5. A reduced or lack of conscious awareness and/or use of allistic (not autistic) nonverbal behaviour and communication such as facial expression, gesture, and posture. This criterion should not exclude persons who have learnt to read or otherwise comprehend nonverbal behaviour by rote learning, particularly adults. Intentional learning to overcome an inherent difficulty in comprehension is supportive of this criterion. It should also not exclude persons who have been taught to use nonverbals to be less visibly different. In such cases, internal report of difficulty should take precedence over apparent behaviour.
B. Differences in cognition (at least 3, one of which must be 1 or 2)
1. Difficulty in beginning or ending (at least 1):
- Perseverative thoughts or behaviours
- Needing prompts (visual, verbal, hand-over-hand, etc) to begin or finish a task [Sometimes. Brushing my teeth, hand-over-hand me or it's just not happening. And others, but that is the persistent one. Every godamn day.]
- Difficulties planning complex activities
- Catatonia
- Difficulty switching between activities
- Lack of apparent startle response
- Preference for sameness (same food, same clothes, same travel routes, etc)
- Problems with pronoun use that are developmentally inappropriate
- A reduced or lack of awareness of tone in self (ie, speaks in a monotone, childish, or otherwise unusual manner) and/or others (ie, does not perceive sarcasm [Sometimes. I have learnt to ask.] or follow implied prompts , responds to rhetorical statements and questions in earnest)
- A reduced or lack of awareness of volume (ie, speaks too loud or too quietly for the situation)[Always.]
- No functional language use (includes sign, PECS, spoken, written, and any other communicative language regardless of form)
- Echolalia [Insert linkage when you have written that thing about echo echo echo.]
- Mutism in some or all situations
- Uses scripts instead of spontaneous language (these may also be delayed echolalic in nature [Not always, but often.])
4. Asymmetry of cognitive skills[Executive dysfunction galore, and I have, literally, two ADLs.]
5. Talents in any pattern recognition, including music, mathematics, specific language structures, puzzles, and art (any one meets this criterion, not all must be present)
6. A tendency to focus on details instead of the broader picture, across contexts.
C. These differences cause impairment and/or distress in at least one context (ie, school, work, home), which may be variable over time. Impairment or distress may be defined variably, including meltdowns, anxiety, depression, a pervasive sense of not fitting in, and compulsive behaviours. It is necessary to remember that while the symptoms are not necessarily disabling in themselves, the social response to these symptoms can be disabling. The impairment or distress may be historical, with appropriate evidence to support this claim (ie, a documented history of meltdowns as a child, and only mild anxiety as an adult), as distress may decrease over time and with education.
D. Symptoms should be present in early childhood [I suppose, considering childhood diagnosis, but what do I know?], but may not be noticable until social demands outpace compensatory skills, at any age. [Like many of us, I was diagnosed at a rather young age, but wasn't -told- about my dx until far older. By that time I had figured it out on my own.]
Friday, June 14, 2013
In which Anonymus Maximus is inchoherent and sad.
A while back, a bunch of Autistic advocates and activists did a flashblog to get Google to remove hate speech from its automated search completion, remember?
It had to do with the fact that before this, searching for "Autistic people should" gave suggestions such as "be killed". And. And and and.
We were successful. In a sense. But this is not what I intend to talk about right now. But it is related.
What I intend to talk about was those commenters during that drive that claimed that our worry about these things, our anger at our murderers getting the sympathy, our fear of violence, was unreasonable. Because people don't think that way. The search suggestions is a result of autistics talking about those opinions and not actually a representation of what people think.
Autistics aren't getting abused and killed. And people aren't sympathetic to our murderers.
It doesn't happen.
Except it does.
Alex Spourdalakis was murdered by his mother, and go look at the comments, if you think you can stomach it.
A fourteen year old boy was murdered. By his mother. A fourteen year old boy with the name Alex Spourdalakis was found murdered in his bed. Stabbed multiple times in the chest. By his mother. Who is trying to claim that she was overwhelmed. That he was such a burden. That she couldn't care for him.
His mother was offered services, and declined them. And then she murdered her son.
The story as it is right now suggests that she made multiple attempts before succeeding.
She tried to murder her son multiple times.
And then, the person that is supposed to love him, who is supposed to care for him, who brought him out of hospital because of treatment disagreements, stabbed him in the chest. Multiple times. Whilst he was in his bed.
SHE MURDERED HER SON, and in those comments? People are sympathetic to her. They understand her actions.
I am lost and sad and angry.
I grieve for Alex.
One day, you lot have to stop murdering us!
It had to do with the fact that before this, searching for "Autistic people should" gave suggestions such as "be killed". And. And and and.
We were successful. In a sense. But this is not what I intend to talk about right now. But it is related.
What I intend to talk about was those commenters during that drive that claimed that our worry about these things, our anger at our murderers getting the sympathy, our fear of violence, was unreasonable. Because people don't think that way. The search suggestions is a result of autistics talking about those opinions and not actually a representation of what people think.
Autistics aren't getting abused and killed. And people aren't sympathetic to our murderers.
It doesn't happen.
Except it does.
Alex Spourdalakis was murdered by his mother, and go look at the comments, if you think you can stomach it.
A fourteen year old boy was murdered. By his mother. A fourteen year old boy with the name Alex Spourdalakis was found murdered in his bed. Stabbed multiple times in the chest. By his mother. Who is trying to claim that she was overwhelmed. That he was such a burden. That she couldn't care for him.
His mother was offered services, and declined them. And then she murdered her son.
The story as it is right now suggests that she made multiple attempts before succeeding.
She tried to murder her son multiple times.
And then, the person that is supposed to love him, who is supposed to care for him, who brought him out of hospital because of treatment disagreements, stabbed him in the chest. Multiple times. Whilst he was in his bed.
SHE MURDERED HER SON, and in those comments? People are sympathetic to her. They understand her actions.
I am lost and sad and angry.
I grieve for Alex.
One day, you lot have to stop murdering us!
Friday, April 5, 2013
In which Anonymus Maximus talks about Good Intentions and How They Are Not Enough
1.
It is not “just a bear”. It is “just a bear that, by buying it, you give money to an organisation that thinks me being born was a mistake, and works to make sure no more people with my type of brain are born and believes people with my type of brain are such tragedies to our families that I am something that is being inflicted upon them and our lives have so little worth that when we come to a hospital in need of lifesustaining procedures that are standard, rather small in comparison to everything else, and reversible we should still consider DYING as a valid, preferable, medical alternative.”
2.
It is truly a very cute bear. BUT IT GIVES MONEY TO A EUGENICS ORGANISATION THAT SUPPORTS TORTURE-AS-THERAPY.
3.
Yes, it was very sweet of your mother to get a bear for you. You can think that and like the bear, AND be aware that by buying that bear for you, your mother gave money to an organisation that’d rather you didn’t exist.
4.
How, exactly, does kids learn about autism by being given a blue teddy bear?
5.
“They did bad things in the past”? Not six weeks ago, but sure. That’s the past.
I’m sure they’ve tidied up their attitudes and their campaigns and their rhetoric since then.
6.
Most don’t know that A$ wants autistics to no longer exist.
Most don’t know that they don’t really help.
Most don’t know that the “awareness” they promote is a fear rhetoric that gets people killed.
It’s all well and good to want to do something good. PROBLEM IS THAT A$ IS NOT GOOD. And most don’t know it.
7.
No. It’s not just a bear.
That bear is a gesture within your family that is truly very sweet, with nothing but good intentions and loving gift giving, mother to daughter.
That bear is ALSO an unfortunate monetary donation to an organisation that doesn’t want you to exist.
It’s not just a bear.
Or maybe it is.
Just a bear.
Monday, March 25, 2013
In which Anonymus Maximus talks about Awareness and Acceptance and Racism and Hell on Earth.
A couple of days ago me and some friends [Wait, friends? I thought you were-] were talking about traveling, and airports in particular.
I have a long-standing claim that Hell is Terminal 3 at Heathrow Airport [Which started as straight up echolalia from an episode of God Almighty with Hugh Laurie. It's been a couple of years since that now, so it has been modified, but the structure is still the same.*] and it's only gotten worse with the changes in security measures. (And then Gatwick went and decided that they were gonna -automate- the security procedure, which means that Gatwick is now almost as bad as Heathrow.) And talking about flying and Airports and that I was going to the UK next week, this came up.
This made the conversation veer off into invasive-security-searches and racial profiling, in which an aquaintance stated that he didn't mind invasive security searches so long as the airports didn't pretend they were random. As in, he was okay with casual racism provided that the security officials admitted that what they were doing was casual racism. (Although, I'm not sure he was aware of this. He wanted them to be honest about targeting middle easterners for looking like mulims and terrorists and whatnot, and it not being random. If he realised that this is in fact racism is an open question.)
And to say that this irks me a little bit is to be understating it. Both for the racism reason and for the personal reason. I am incapable of getting through an airport (any airport, thus far) with my oral speech intact.
And I move in the way I move, talk the way I talk, communicate the way I communicate. And thus, I am targeted by the same security personel, who think that the way I move is suspicious. The way I talk is suspicious. That I can't always talk to them is suspicious. That I reach for my wallet to get my communication cards is suspicious. I fear for the day I am deemed dangerous.
See, my cards can ask people to slow down, to give me a minute to formulate a response, to provide a pen and paper so that I can write, to please repeat what they were saying as I didn't catch it the first time around [It's not that I can't hear, it's that I hear everything, and then my auditory processing shuts down. There is a reason I think airports are hell.], but they can't stop people from asking where my keeper or caregiver are, they can't impart an immediate understanding of what autism means unto a security official that has already decided that I am suspicous and potentially dangerous and up to no good, they can't make a person -accept- that I need to type, they can't convince someone who thinks I am being contrary that I can't hear what they are saying, that it's not that I won't - it's that I can't.
And here was my friend, saying that targeting people based on prejudice is okay and nothing to get upset about, as long as they were honest about what behaviours and looks and needs would be targeted. I just have to accept to get the 'random' spot-checks because I can't remember the right script to answer the "do you have liquids in your carry-on?". Every time I'm asked this question, I look around, harrumph to myself before catching the fact that I need to say "No.". And this makes me suspicious, despite the fact that they can -see- on the godamn scanner that there are in fact no liquids in my bag. And that is the nice and mild type of targeting of my behaviours at the airport, an environment in which I am on the verge of melting down from luggage drop onwards. Imagine what would happen if I DID melt down. I fear it.
And this is also why I fear Autism Awareness efforts. Because when I hand over the "Autistic" card I need the reaction to be a greater respect for my communications issues, not more fear because everyone knows that people with autism are randomly violent. The first of those is autism acceptance, the second is autism awareness.
Being -aware- of autism means listening to harmful, faulty rhetorics about this disability.
Accepting it means that you realise that not everyone works the same way.
It's not all that difficult.
*I'm not sure people always realise what it means when I say my speech is highly echolalic. This particular episode contains so many phrases I've used for years now. But, point is, when I start out a new phrase, I'm not just repeating it. I'm using the same inflection and stresses as the person who said it first did. It takes time for me to modify phrases.
I have a long-standing claim that Hell is Terminal 3 at Heathrow Airport [Which started as straight up echolalia from an episode of God Almighty with Hugh Laurie. It's been a couple of years since that now, so it has been modified, but the structure is still the same.*] and it's only gotten worse with the changes in security measures. (And then Gatwick went and decided that they were gonna -automate- the security procedure, which means that Gatwick is now almost as bad as Heathrow.) And talking about flying and Airports and that I was going to the UK next week, this came up.
This made the conversation veer off into invasive-security-searches and racial profiling, in which an aquaintance stated that he didn't mind invasive security searches so long as the airports didn't pretend they were random. As in, he was okay with casual racism provided that the security officials admitted that what they were doing was casual racism. (Although, I'm not sure he was aware of this. He wanted them to be honest about targeting middle easterners for looking like mulims and terrorists and whatnot, and it not being random. If he realised that this is in fact racism is an open question.)
And to say that this irks me a little bit is to be understating it. Both for the racism reason and for the personal reason. I am incapable of getting through an airport (any airport, thus far) with my oral speech intact.
And I move in the way I move, talk the way I talk, communicate the way I communicate. And thus, I am targeted by the same security personel, who think that the way I move is suspicious. The way I talk is suspicious. That I can't always talk to them is suspicious. That I reach for my wallet to get my communication cards is suspicious. I fear for the day I am deemed dangerous.
See, my cards can ask people to slow down, to give me a minute to formulate a response, to provide a pen and paper so that I can write, to please repeat what they were saying as I didn't catch it the first time around [It's not that I can't hear, it's that I hear everything, and then my auditory processing shuts down. There is a reason I think airports are hell.], but they can't stop people from asking where my keeper or caregiver are, they can't impart an immediate understanding of what autism means unto a security official that has already decided that I am suspicous and potentially dangerous and up to no good, they can't make a person -accept- that I need to type, they can't convince someone who thinks I am being contrary that I can't hear what they are saying, that it's not that I won't - it's that I can't.
And here was my friend, saying that targeting people based on prejudice is okay and nothing to get upset about, as long as they were honest about what behaviours and looks and needs would be targeted. I just have to accept to get the 'random' spot-checks because I can't remember the right script to answer the "do you have liquids in your carry-on?". Every time I'm asked this question, I look around, harrumph to myself before catching the fact that I need to say "No.". And this makes me suspicious, despite the fact that they can -see- on the godamn scanner that there are in fact no liquids in my bag. And that is the nice and mild type of targeting of my behaviours at the airport, an environment in which I am on the verge of melting down from luggage drop onwards. Imagine what would happen if I DID melt down. I fear it.
And this is also why I fear Autism Awareness efforts. Because when I hand over the "Autistic" card I need the reaction to be a greater respect for my communications issues, not more fear because everyone knows that people with autism are randomly violent. The first of those is autism acceptance, the second is autism awareness.
Being -aware- of autism means listening to harmful, faulty rhetorics about this disability.
Accepting it means that you realise that not everyone works the same way.
It's not all that difficult.
*I'm not sure people always realise what it means when I say my speech is highly echolalic. This particular episode contains so many phrases I've used for years now. But, point is, when I start out a new phrase, I'm not just repeating it. I'm using the same inflection and stresses as the person who said it first did. It takes time for me to modify phrases.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
In which Anonymus Maximus talks some more about what Autistic People Are...
Autistic people are speaking - and it is indeed time to listen.
Autistic people, by defintition, utilises language in a non-standard way, ranging from non-verbal to hyperverbal. Hyperlexia is a symptom of autism, as is echolalia, palalia and extensive scripting.
But autistic people are communicating.
My personal language is highly scripted, and very echolalic. It is also, contrary to popular assumptions about autistic language usage, heavily reliant on extended metaphors. My language is a meta-language, if you will.
Earlier today I wrote a piece about the younger me, and the current me, being a dancer. Autistic people, being dancers. This is of course true in the literal sense. I am a dancer. I dance. And I would say that there are other autistics out there who dance.
But this is also one of my extended metaphors. It concerns movement and knowledge and bodies and thought and interpretation and being in tune with the rythm of your life. About the music of emotion. About communication.
Autistic people are dancers, because autistic people communicate.
Autistic people are dancers, because we move with the rythm of our lives. We might not move like you do. But we are dancers.
Last week we were writing-talking-speaking-communicating about the hatespeech generated by the google search auto-complete algorithm by flashblogging. The community moving as one to make things better. Talking about positive things. How Autistic people should be loved, and should be heard.
Well. We were heard. Google has said they shall fix this.
But we were then erased from the effort by the largest USian charity claiming to be on our side, whilst they tried to take credit. Erased from our own advocacy by people claiming to advocate for us. Autism Speaks tips their hat to Google, and doesn't at all mention the effort of the autistics out there who did the work to make it happen. No mention of Alyssa of YesThatToo, no mention of the flashblog. No mention of the dance of words, the music of emotions, the coordinated movement of people routinely assumed to be silent. We are dancers. We are speaking.
Autistic people are speaking and it is time to listen.
This does not mean allistic family members are speaking about and above their autistic family members and you should listen to them. It means autistic people are speaking and you should listen to them.
Autism Speaks does not speak for me.
I am speaking all on my own.
Autistic people, by defintition, utilises language in a non-standard way, ranging from non-verbal to hyperverbal. Hyperlexia is a symptom of autism, as is echolalia, palalia and extensive scripting.
But autistic people are communicating.
My personal language is highly scripted, and very echolalic. It is also, contrary to popular assumptions about autistic language usage, heavily reliant on extended metaphors. My language is a meta-language, if you will.
Earlier today I wrote a piece about the younger me, and the current me, being a dancer. Autistic people, being dancers. This is of course true in the literal sense. I am a dancer. I dance. And I would say that there are other autistics out there who dance.
But this is also one of my extended metaphors. It concerns movement and knowledge and bodies and thought and interpretation and being in tune with the rythm of your life. About the music of emotion. About communication.
Autistic people are dancers, because autistic people communicate.
Autistic people are dancers, because we move with the rythm of our lives. We might not move like you do. But we are dancers.
Last week we were writing-talking-speaking-communicating about the hatespeech generated by the google search auto-complete algorithm by flashblogging. The community moving as one to make things better. Talking about positive things. How Autistic people should be loved, and should be heard.
Well. We were heard. Google has said they shall fix this.
But we were then erased from the effort by the largest USian charity claiming to be on our side, whilst they tried to take credit. Erased from our own advocacy by people claiming to advocate for us. Autism Speaks tips their hat to Google, and doesn't at all mention the effort of the autistics out there who did the work to make it happen. No mention of Alyssa of YesThatToo, no mention of the flashblog. No mention of the dance of words, the music of emotions, the coordinated movement of people routinely assumed to be silent. We are dancers. We are speaking.
Autistic people are speaking and it is time to listen.
This does not mean allistic family members are speaking about and above their autistic family members and you should listen to them. It means autistic people are speaking and you should listen to them.
Autism Speaks does not speak for me.
I am speaking all on my own.
In which Anonymus Maximus flashblogs about what Autistic People Are...
This is Anonymus Minimus, and she is a dancer.
She will never become a world champion, but that is okay, because she doesn't dance for the competitions and the trophies. She dances because she loves the movement and the rythm and the music and the overall elation of the dance.
When she is dancing her arms are at her sides and her back is straight, she is high on her toes and she crosses her feet. She will never be a world champion, but that is okay.
Because this is Anonymus Minimus and she is a dancer.
This is Anonymus Minimus, and she is a dancer.
When
she isn't dancing she stays high on her toes and her hands and arms are always moving, flapping,
touching her hair, covering her ears. When she isn't dancing she is
rocking, reading, signing, humming strange songs to herself.
She doesn't speak much, but her life is filled with music and rythm.
This is Anonymus Minimus, and she is a dancer.
She is also the clumsiest person she knows. She drools and spills and falls and tumbles and can't guage the force she should use when picking things up. She has very little awareness of her own body, her own limbs. But this is okay, because the secret to knowing that you have a body is to forget that it limits you.
This is Anonymus Minimus, and she is autistic.
Somewhere along the line, Anonymus Minimus grows up.
She becomes an adult, a scientist, an activist, an advocate, an educator.
She grows up and becomes an author, an engineer, a mathematician, a physicist.
She grows up and becomes an artist, a musician, a baker and a cook.
She grows up and becomes Anonymus Maximus.
And above it all, she is a dancer.
This is Anonymus Maximus, and she is a dancer.
This is Anonymus Maximus, and she is Autistic.
Autistic people are dancers.
We move to the music and rythm of our lives.
Autistic people are dancers.
We may not move like you do.
But we are dancers.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
In which Anonymus Maximus flashblogs about what Autistic People Should... (part 2)
Autistic people should be heard.
Our voices should be listened to. The things we have to say about our own lives respected.
Popular discourse around autism is focused on the parent, the sibling, the caretaker, the teacher, the therapist, the doctor, and the actually autistic people are left out.
And when we try to make our voices heard, we are silenced with "you are not like my child" [Obviously not. Your child is a child. I am not.], implying that because we can advocate for ourselves and other autistics we are not autistic enough to know anything about the difficulties of our disability.
You can say that I am wrong, thusly I am not autistic enough, low-functioning enough, to have anything of value to say.
Autistic people should be heard.
The actually autistic people are left out of the conversation about our disability.
It is focused on mice "developing autistic behaviours" as if mice could be autistic. (I'm not actually sure, maybe they can be, but I fail to recognise how behaviours that are considered autistic in humans would be the same behaviours a potentially autistic mouse exhibited.) It is focused on pre-natal testing, to make sure autistic children won't be born. It is focused on the great burden it is for a family to have an autistic family member. It is focused on how eye-contact is so very important and absolutely devastating if it isn't done. It is focused on everything but the actually autistic people, and what we have to say.
Autistic people should be heard.
And not just when we say things you agree with. We should be listened to when we say that you are being ableist, we should be listened to when we say that you are wrong, we should be listened to when we say that you are perpetuating stereotypes, we should be listened to when we say that there is hope, we should be listened to when we say that we don't want cures, we should be listened to when we say that we don't want to be Not Autistic, we should be listened to when we say that passing for allistic isn't a good thing. We should be listened to when we are challenging your beliefs, because we speak from a lived experience.
Autistic people should be heard.
I don't care if your brother is autistic, you are not the authority on the autistic experience.
I don't care if you work with autistic children (sorry, children with autism. Nevermind that the autistic community prefer identity first.), you are not the authority on the autistic experience.
I don't care if you have an autistic classmate, you are not the authority on the autistic experience.
I don't care if you have studied autism in school, you are not the authority on the autistic experience.
I don't care if you used to date an autistic person, you are not the authority on the autistic experience.
I don't care if you are the parent of an autistic child, you are not the authority on the autistic experience.
I don't care if you are studying neuroscience, you are not the authority on the autistic experience.
I don't care if you are otherwise neurodivergent, you are not the authority on the autistic experience, just as I'm not the authority on your divergence.
It turns out that the reliable authorities on the autistic experience are the autistic people themselves.
Autistic people should be heard.
Our voices should be listened to. The things we have to say about our own lives respected.
Popular discourse around autism is focused on the parent, the sibling, the caretaker, the teacher, the therapist, the doctor, and the actually autistic people are left out.
And when we try to make our voices heard, we are silenced with "you are not like my child" [Obviously not. Your child is a child. I am not.], implying that because we can advocate for ourselves and other autistics we are not autistic enough to know anything about the difficulties of our disability.
You can say that I am wrong, thusly I am not autistic enough, low-functioning enough, to have anything of value to say.
Autistic people should be heard.
The actually autistic people are left out of the conversation about our disability.
It is focused on mice "developing autistic behaviours" as if mice could be autistic. (I'm not actually sure, maybe they can be, but I fail to recognise how behaviours that are considered autistic in humans would be the same behaviours a potentially autistic mouse exhibited.) It is focused on pre-natal testing, to make sure autistic children won't be born. It is focused on the great burden it is for a family to have an autistic family member. It is focused on how eye-contact is so very important and absolutely devastating if it isn't done. It is focused on everything but the actually autistic people, and what we have to say.
Autistic people should be heard.
And not just when we say things you agree with. We should be listened to when we say that you are being ableist, we should be listened to when we say that you are wrong, we should be listened to when we say that you are perpetuating stereotypes, we should be listened to when we say that there is hope, we should be listened to when we say that we don't want cures, we should be listened to when we say that we don't want to be Not Autistic, we should be listened to when we say that passing for allistic isn't a good thing. We should be listened to when we are challenging your beliefs, because we speak from a lived experience.
Autistic people should be heard.
I don't care if your brother is autistic, you are not the authority on the autistic experience.
I don't care if you work with autistic children (sorry, children with autism. Nevermind that the autistic community prefer identity first.), you are not the authority on the autistic experience.
I don't care if you have an autistic classmate, you are not the authority on the autistic experience.
I don't care if you have studied autism in school, you are not the authority on the autistic experience.
I don't care if you used to date an autistic person, you are not the authority on the autistic experience.
I don't care if you are the parent of an autistic child, you are not the authority on the autistic experience.
I don't care if you are studying neuroscience, you are not the authority on the autistic experience.
I don't care if you are otherwise neurodivergent, you are not the authority on the autistic experience, just as I'm not the authority on your divergence.
It turns out that the reliable authorities on the autistic experience are the autistic people themselves.
Autistic people should be heard.
In which Anonymus Maximus flashblogs about what Autistic people should...
Autistic people should get to live.
Autistic people should get to lead their lives without fear of violence.
Google search has really rather unfortunate auto-complete for the partial sentence "Autistic people should", and this is text is a part of a larger organized attempt at not getting told that we should be killed.
Autistic people should get to live.
Autistic people should get to lead their lives without fear of violence.
Here and now, today, if a parent murder their child, it is considered a heinous crime.
Here and now, today, if a parent murder their autistic child, it is considered a tragedy. The poor parent. Of course killing is wrong, but it is such a hardship to have an autistic child. It is understandable that they commited a cold blooded murder. Somehow. And people forget that a person lost their life. A person is dead now. And this is not noteworthy, because the person had a different brain.
Autistic people should get to live.
Autistic people shoud get to lead their lives without fear of violence.
I am a person. I am here, I think, I feel, I do, I dream, I love, I learn. And I want to live. I want to be the best me I can be. I want to be happy. I want to bring happiness to others. And I should get to do that, without having to know that most people want me dead.
Autistic people should get to live.
I should get to live. I, an Autistic person, should get to live.
We are here, and we can hear what you are saying about us. You want -people- to be exterminated. Why?
I should get to live.
Autistic people should get to live.
Autistic people should get to lead their lives without fear of violence.
I should get to lead my life withour fear of violence. I, an Autistic person, should get to lead my life without fear of violence.
I am here. And I am forced to lead my life knowing that people would rather I was dead. I am forced to lead my life knowing that parents would rather their child died than being like me. I am here, and I am forced to lead my life knowing that violence against me would be considered justified, and that the person getting the sympathy if I were to be murdered wouldn't be me. It would be my murderer.
Why?
I should get to lead my life without fear of violence.
Autistic people should get to lead their lives without fear of violence.
Autistic people should. Indeed.
Autistic people should get to lead their lives without fear of violence.
Google search has really rather unfortunate auto-complete for the partial sentence "Autistic people should", and this is text is a part of a larger organized attempt at not getting told that we should be killed.
Autistic people should get to live.
Autistic people should get to lead their lives without fear of violence.
Here and now, today, if a parent murder their child, it is considered a heinous crime.
Here and now, today, if a parent murder their autistic child, it is considered a tragedy. The poor parent. Of course killing is wrong, but it is such a hardship to have an autistic child. It is understandable that they commited a cold blooded murder. Somehow. And people forget that a person lost their life. A person is dead now. And this is not noteworthy, because the person had a different brain.
Autistic people should get to live.
Autistic people shoud get to lead their lives without fear of violence.
I am a person. I am here, I think, I feel, I do, I dream, I love, I learn. And I want to live. I want to be the best me I can be. I want to be happy. I want to bring happiness to others. And I should get to do that, without having to know that most people want me dead.
Autistic people should get to live.
I should get to live. I, an Autistic person, should get to live.
We are here, and we can hear what you are saying about us. You want -people- to be exterminated. Why?
I should get to live.
Autistic people should get to live.
Autistic people should get to lead their lives without fear of violence.
I should get to lead my life withour fear of violence. I, an Autistic person, should get to lead my life without fear of violence.
I am here. And I am forced to lead my life knowing that people would rather I was dead. I am forced to lead my life knowing that parents would rather their child died than being like me. I am here, and I am forced to lead my life knowing that violence against me would be considered justified, and that the person getting the sympathy if I were to be murdered wouldn't be me. It would be my murderer.
Why?
I should get to lead my life without fear of violence.
Autistic people should get to lead their lives without fear of violence.
Autistic people should. Indeed.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
In which Anonymus Maximus talks about Being a Visitor
I’m remembering, because the past few days have been hard and difficult and confusing. They have been overwhelming and noisy. They have been dangerous and draining.
So very draining.
And then I remember.
1. Heartland.
I remember being little, and tilting my head and observing people. And being told to stop doing that, it was unnerving. I moved out of Uncanny Valley.
Only, I never really moved out of Uncanny Valley. It is still my home. I am a wanderer in a foreign country.
Sometimes the culture shock is too much, and then I shut down.
2. Culture shock.
I remember all the times my movement have been deeply offensive to whomever was watching. I remember being told to “stop screaming - I can’t hear the TV” - after having just a second before fallen and cracked my cranium as a result.
Because when you get to stop my other movements, my other behaviours, you stop thinking about why I do what I do. You just assume your preference takes precedence over mine. I am a visitor in a foreign country.
3. When in Rome…
I remember teachers taking my books. Because children should play and run with their classmates [regardless of how mean those classmates are, because teachers never see], not sit on the staircase and read. And because I move differently, because I talk with bigger words than the other kids, this is okay. I need to learn how to make age appropriate connections with my peers.
I am a visitor in a foreign country, and when in Rome…
4. Told to be Roman.
I remember when I stoped stimming where people could see. It was a process.
It was Mother mocking my fingers tapping when having dinner with extended family memebers. It was classmates objecting to being told that they had to include me in those games I was forced to participate in when the teachers took my books because I was weird. It was Teacher forcibly taking my kitch, plastic necklace from my hands, because I should pay attention to the class. It was when Sibling told me, screamed at me, to stop moving your feet at the table. It was every time Father took my bluetack, my thinking putty, my soft eraser, because it was disgusting for him to see me fiddle with it.
I remember stopping to stim where others could see me. Then I stimmed for all that I couldn’t when I was alone. Feeling like I was doing something wrong. Something morally reprehensible.
I am a visitor in a foreign country, and when you leave your culture, you hold onto it even harder than you’d do if you were still at home.
5. Invisibility.
I remember that I never really stopped stimming in public. I just became invisible. Smaller movement, less noise, no props.
I gave myself an entire library of stims, rotating them so to the casual observer there was no stereotypy.
I am a visitor in a foreign country, and I keep breaking the law.
6. Acceptance.
I remember back when, before Partner and I moved in together. Back when we were sure we were in this for the long haul, but acknowledging that we were in the very beginning of said haul, Partner came over to my place. I was working on the computer, and was fiddling with a stimtoy. I heard Partner outside, and scrambled to put the toy away, before opening the door. Not putting down. Putting it away.
I did, and moved to the door. Halfway there I got so angry with myself, very resolutely turned around, stomped over and got my toy, before letting Partner in. Because if Partner was gonna be my partner, they better accept my weird private behaviours, my weird private movements. Partner didn’t even notice the toy.
I am a visitor in a foreign country, and I found a native who is curious about where I am from.
7. Identity.
I remember crying after I saw The Loud Hands Project video. There were people who moved like me.
I am a visitor in a foreign country, and I found the expat community.
8. Civil disobediance.
I remember deciding that, you know what? I don’t care about you. I -like- stimming. It doesn’t hurt anything more than your delicate sensibilities. I will stim when I feel like it.
I am a visitor in a foreign country, and I proudly engage in civil disobediance.
9. Change.
I remember that not all who wanders are lost. Some are, I’m not.
I am a visitor in a foreign country, and I might like it here.
So very draining.
And then I remember.
1. Heartland.
I remember being little, and tilting my head and observing people. And being told to stop doing that, it was unnerving. I moved out of Uncanny Valley.
Only, I never really moved out of Uncanny Valley. It is still my home. I am a wanderer in a foreign country.
Sometimes the culture shock is too much, and then I shut down.
2. Culture shock.
I remember all the times my movement have been deeply offensive to whomever was watching. I remember being told to “stop screaming - I can’t hear the TV” - after having just a second before fallen and cracked my cranium as a result.
Because when you get to stop my other movements, my other behaviours, you stop thinking about why I do what I do. You just assume your preference takes precedence over mine. I am a visitor in a foreign country.
3. When in Rome…
I remember teachers taking my books. Because children should play and run with their classmates [regardless of how mean those classmates are, because teachers never see], not sit on the staircase and read. And because I move differently, because I talk with bigger words than the other kids, this is okay. I need to learn how to make age appropriate connections with my peers.
I am a visitor in a foreign country, and when in Rome…
4. Told to be Roman.
I remember when I stoped stimming where people could see. It was a process.
It was Mother mocking my fingers tapping when having dinner with extended family memebers. It was classmates objecting to being told that they had to include me in those games I was forced to participate in when the teachers took my books because I was weird. It was Teacher forcibly taking my kitch, plastic necklace from my hands, because I should pay attention to the class. It was when Sibling told me, screamed at me, to stop moving your feet at the table. It was every time Father took my bluetack, my thinking putty, my soft eraser, because it was disgusting for him to see me fiddle with it.
I remember stopping to stim where others could see me. Then I stimmed for all that I couldn’t when I was alone. Feeling like I was doing something wrong. Something morally reprehensible.
I am a visitor in a foreign country, and when you leave your culture, you hold onto it even harder than you’d do if you were still at home.
5. Invisibility.
I remember that I never really stopped stimming in public. I just became invisible. Smaller movement, less noise, no props.
I gave myself an entire library of stims, rotating them so to the casual observer there was no stereotypy.
I am a visitor in a foreign country, and I keep breaking the law.
6. Acceptance.
I remember back when, before Partner and I moved in together. Back when we were sure we were in this for the long haul, but acknowledging that we were in the very beginning of said haul, Partner came over to my place. I was working on the computer, and was fiddling with a stimtoy. I heard Partner outside, and scrambled to put the toy away, before opening the door. Not putting down. Putting it away.
I did, and moved to the door. Halfway there I got so angry with myself, very resolutely turned around, stomped over and got my toy, before letting Partner in. Because if Partner was gonna be my partner, they better accept my weird private behaviours, my weird private movements. Partner didn’t even notice the toy.
I am a visitor in a foreign country, and I found a native who is curious about where I am from.
7. Identity.
I remember crying after I saw The Loud Hands Project video. There were people who moved like me.
I am a visitor in a foreign country, and I found the expat community.
8. Civil disobediance.
I remember deciding that, you know what? I don’t care about you. I -like- stimming. It doesn’t hurt anything more than your delicate sensibilities. I will stim when I feel like it.
I am a visitor in a foreign country, and I proudly engage in civil disobediance.
9. Change.
I remember that not all who wanders are lost. Some are, I’m not.
I am a visitor in a foreign country, and I might like it here.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
In which Anonymus Maximus talks about Life and Perception
One thing that makes life super hard is the fact that we have to live as unedited versions of ourselves.
In which Anonymus Maximus talks about the Social Model of Disability
Hello children! Today we're talking about two words, and their differing meanings, and how this intersects with ableism [and how the fact that 'ableism' still isn't considered a correct word works to continue said ableism] and a small discussion about how humans are social animals.
So. For context. I am quirky, clinically so. For a large chunk of my life I thought I was just quirky, and lazy, and since everyone else around me managed their lifes, I obviously could handle mine if I just tried harder. Then I became clinically quirky, and got a lable that says disabled, and get told repeatedly that I have no agency and because I am disabled I can't know what I think or lead a successful life.
This is bullshit.
So, lets talk about disabled.
Disability is not the same thing as impairedment. One thing doesn't actually mean the other.
And this is interesting.
You see, we have this tendancy to think that if you are disabled, you are impaired in some way. We also think that only disabled people are impaired. And we never think of the difference. [Word of warning, what follows is the idea of the social model of disability, and is somewhat Social Justice 101]
See, we are all impaired. Impairment means something we cannot do.
A rather common impairment nowadays is myopia. It is quite easily corrected with glasses. Glasses are assistive technology.
But, none of us are disabled because of it. And none of us thinks of glasses as assistive technology.
Disability would arise if there were no glasses.
Interestingly enough, this means that you wouldn't necessarily -feel- disabled or -suffer- from your impairment. Because you'd still see and do and feel and hear everything that you can see and do and feel and hear today, as you are, here and now and in real life [by which I mean, not some abstract you from a thought experiment], only, every other human being you ever encountered can see more than you do, and assume that you can too, and this would be where your suffering (from your disability caused by an entirely non-painful impairment) comes from. [Also, possibly, headaches, because yeah.]
So if you use a wheelchair for ambulatory purposes, you are impaired because you can't walk, but you are disabled because society insists on kerbs and staircases.
I think, maybe, one could be disabled without necessarily being impaired as well. Although I don't know how.
The main problem, I suppose, is that the social model talks about impairment and disability and ableism, and it synonymizes disability with ableism [kinda], but keeps using impairment and disability as interchangable words. Confusing? Yes. Yes it is.
Thusly we conclude the lecture about the Social Model of Disability, as a part of the series known as The Meanings of Words, and as a primer for Social Justice 101.
In conclusion: You can be impaired without being disabled. We all are.
You can be both impaired and disabled, and the disability comes from humans not making reasonable accomodations because we aren't used to needing to do so.
And you can be disabled without being impaired.
What does this tell us? [I say: "Kafka was right, Hell is indeed other people."] Other people is usually the problem. Aint that interesting, so say!
So. For context. I am quirky, clinically so. For a large chunk of my life I thought I was just quirky, and lazy, and since everyone else around me managed their lifes, I obviously could handle mine if I just tried harder. Then I became clinically quirky, and got a lable that says disabled, and get told repeatedly that I have no agency and because I am disabled I can't know what I think or lead a successful life.
This is bullshit.
So, lets talk about disabled.
Disability is not the same thing as impairedment. One thing doesn't actually mean the other.
And this is interesting.
You see, we have this tendancy to think that if you are disabled, you are impaired in some way. We also think that only disabled people are impaired. And we never think of the difference. [Word of warning, what follows is the idea of the social model of disability, and is somewhat Social Justice 101]
See, we are all impaired. Impairment means something we cannot do.
A rather common impairment nowadays is myopia. It is quite easily corrected with glasses. Glasses are assistive technology.
But, none of us are disabled because of it. And none of us thinks of glasses as assistive technology.
Disability would arise if there were no glasses.
Interestingly enough, this means that you wouldn't necessarily -feel- disabled or -suffer- from your impairment. Because you'd still see and do and feel and hear everything that you can see and do and feel and hear today, as you are, here and now and in real life [by which I mean, not some abstract you from a thought experiment], only, every other human being you ever encountered can see more than you do, and assume that you can too, and this would be where your suffering (from your disability caused by an entirely non-painful impairment) comes from. [Also, possibly, headaches, because yeah.]
So if you use a wheelchair for ambulatory purposes, you are impaired because you can't walk, but you are disabled because society insists on kerbs and staircases.
I think, maybe, one could be disabled without necessarily being impaired as well. Although I don't know how.
The main problem, I suppose, is that the social model talks about impairment and disability and ableism, and it synonymizes disability with ableism [kinda], but keeps using impairment and disability as interchangable words. Confusing? Yes. Yes it is.
Thusly we conclude the lecture about the Social Model of Disability, as a part of the series known as The Meanings of Words, and as a primer for Social Justice 101.
In conclusion: You can be impaired without being disabled. We all are.
You can be both impaired and disabled, and the disability comes from humans not making reasonable accomodations because we aren't used to needing to do so.
And you can be disabled without being impaired.
What does this tell us? [I say: "Kafka was right, Hell is indeed other people."] Other people is usually the problem. Aint that interesting, so say!
In which Anonymus Maximus talks about Mary Sue and her qualities
I heard once that the most common 'negative' characteristic of a Mary Sue is clumsiness.
And then I thought: "Ohmigod. I am a Mary Sue. I am a badly written female character!"
And I have multiple things to say about this.
1.
I will never not find it unintentionally hilarious that we are talking about Mary Sues in a world that has textual works in which the main protagonist is Batman.
2.
Why is Batman a protagonist, but a seemingly female character with the same characteristics is a Mary Sue and should be purged by fire?
3.
Also, Superman?
4.
Exactly what is it that is so objectionable about self-insertion?
5.
How come that these 'clumsy' Mary Sues never actually are clumsy?
I don't know. I am clumsy, and work hard on negating that. And most people around me probably wouldn't describe me as clumsy. But clumsy, isn't that when you use an inappropriate amount of force when handling things? Pulling to hard, not holding on hard enough, constantly pondering if there really is a hole in you chin because you keep spilling your drinks out of your mouth? Somehow requiring more than a year to learn how to get in and out of a specific car gracefully without hitting yourself?
6.
Why is 'clumsy' a character trait that is somehow not negative enough, and therefore the negative character trait of a Mary Sue?
7.
Why can't women be terrifyingly awesome?
8.
I'm going to go about my day and be terrifyingly awesome, thankyouverymuch.
Therefore I am a Mary Sue and a badly written female character.
9.
Also, I am not.
If we're gonna be technical about it I'm not a woman. If you want to force me, your gracious host, your author this evening, to use words, I'd say that I am genderqueer, and that I have the weirdes passing issues.
But.
Because the idea of Mary Sues exist. Because I am a badly written female charater, and because men are the default, I use feminine pronouns about myself, I don't mind [terribly] to be gendered as female by others. Because there is this political implication for me to remain in the fold of the female human on a scale that has opposed and binary genders.
10.
Can people stop being douches?
And then I thought: "Ohmigod. I am a Mary Sue. I am a badly written female character!"
And I have multiple things to say about this.
1.
I will never not find it unintentionally hilarious that we are talking about Mary Sues in a world that has textual works in which the main protagonist is Batman.
2.
Why is Batman a protagonist, but a seemingly female character with the same characteristics is a Mary Sue and should be purged by fire?
3.
Also, Superman?
4.
Exactly what is it that is so objectionable about self-insertion?
5.
How come that these 'clumsy' Mary Sues never actually are clumsy?
I don't know. I am clumsy, and work hard on negating that. And most people around me probably wouldn't describe me as clumsy. But clumsy, isn't that when you use an inappropriate amount of force when handling things? Pulling to hard, not holding on hard enough, constantly pondering if there really is a hole in you chin because you keep spilling your drinks out of your mouth? Somehow requiring more than a year to learn how to get in and out of a specific car gracefully without hitting yourself?
6.
Why is 'clumsy' a character trait that is somehow not negative enough, and therefore the negative character trait of a Mary Sue?
7.
Why can't women be terrifyingly awesome?
8.
I'm going to go about my day and be terrifyingly awesome, thankyouverymuch.
Therefore I am a Mary Sue and a badly written female character.
9.
Also, I am not.
If we're gonna be technical about it I'm not a woman. If you want to force me, your gracious host, your author this evening, to use words, I'd say that I am genderqueer, and that I have the weirdes passing issues.
But.
Because the idea of Mary Sues exist. Because I am a badly written female charater, and because men are the default, I use feminine pronouns about myself, I don't mind [terribly] to be gendered as female by others. Because there is this political implication for me to remain in the fold of the female human on a scale that has opposed and binary genders.
10.
Can people stop being douches?
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
In which Anonymus Maximus talks about the Meaning of Words (part 2)
Dear Glee Fandom!
Usually I rant about your vaious -isms and how you all fail as allies and how you are a very toxic environment and how I don't understand why you all seem to hate the source material. Actually, no. I usually talk in too much detail about the show that I am seeing, and silently accepting of the idea that we all watch a different show, because we all filter what we see through our own life experiences. And then I tell my partner that I don't understand the fandom. I only rant when someone ends up being particulary offensive. Today, however, we're talking about a Pet Peeve of mine.
A misconception, a fault, something that is wrong and at times strikes me as willfully ignorant, something that is -really- common in the Glee Fandom.
So.
Dear Glee Fandom.
"Drabble" is a word with a specific meaning. Please stop using it as a synonyme to "ficlet" and "snippet".
A drabble is a story that is exactly 100 words long. Exactly!
I know this is rather inconsequential and really not a very big or important part of all the faults and wrongs with this fandom of ours.
But PLEASE!
Drabble means 'story of 100 words'.
Remember that!
Usually I rant about your vaious -isms and how you all fail as allies and how you are a very toxic environment and how I don't understand why you all seem to hate the source material. Actually, no. I usually talk in too much detail about the show that I am seeing, and silently accepting of the idea that we all watch a different show, because we all filter what we see through our own life experiences. And then I tell my partner that I don't understand the fandom. I only rant when someone ends up being particulary offensive. Today, however, we're talking about a Pet Peeve of mine.
A misconception, a fault, something that is wrong and at times strikes me as willfully ignorant, something that is -really- common in the Glee Fandom.
So.
Dear Glee Fandom.
"Drabble" is a word with a specific meaning. Please stop using it as a synonyme to "ficlet" and "snippet".
A drabble is a story that is exactly 100 words long. Exactly!
I know this is rather inconsequential and really not a very big or important part of all the faults and wrongs with this fandom of ours.
But PLEASE!
Drabble means 'story of 100 words'.
Remember that!